Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FORTH HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEME CONFIRMATION (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

PETITION

Stansted Airport

Sir D. Walker Smith: I beg to present a Petition on behalf of the Urban District Council of Sawbridgeworth in the County of Hertford. The Petition recites the Government's intention to site the third London airport at Stansted, and refers to the various disastrous consequences which would flow therefrom in respect of educational services, living conditions, road improvement schemes in East Hertfordshire, and the attraction of industry to a predominantly residential area. The Petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government may be called upon to examine afresh its policy for national airports and the suitability of Stansted and other alternative sites for the third London airport, and to refrain from granting planning permission for the development of the airport at Stansted until this has been done and a final decision can be taken in the context of an overall national airports policy.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Aircraft Industry (Redeployment of Labour)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has completed his special study of the redeployment of labour from the aircraft industry.

The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): No, Sir. The Study is not yet complete.

Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the study has been promised for so long that people are beginning to doubt whether it is taking place at all?

Mr. Shore: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the study is proceeding. I think that there can be two views on this. My feeling is that the value of the study will be increased by the delay.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is correct that if the arrangements recently announced materialise we may have to redeploy 100,000 men at present employed in the aircraft industry?

Mr. Shore: I cannot tell what event my hon. Friend is referring to, but if he puts down a Question on this later I shall be only too pleased to try to find the answer.

Brain Drain

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what expenditure has been incurred by his Department in the past three years in analysing the causes of the brain drain and attempting to reverse it.

Mr. Shore: None, Sir. The main support for the Jones Committee's work on this subject was provided by the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Onslow: Assuming that the Department of Economic Affairs is asked to give advice, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the best advice that he can give is that people will stay here only


when the society is worth while in their view, and that before that happens there must be considerable fiscal and political changes?

Mr. Shore: I think that there are many factors, as the Jones Committee's Report suggested, which bear on the decision of individual men and women to leave this country. I would not place as much weight on the fiscal system as the hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a particularly flagrant attempt by the American Westinghouse Corporation to induce senior British scientists to leave Dounreay, and is he aware that they will be susceptible to these approaches so long as the Atomic Energy Authority remains unclear about the future of its research work at that establishment?

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir, I have seen these reports. I have also seen the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, to whom I think the latter part of my hon. Friend's question ought to be directed.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In view of the criticisms made by the Prime Minister about British industry, following the Report of the Jones Committee, do the Government intend to ask the nationalised industries to give a lead in paying much higher salaries to qualified scientists and engineers?

Mr. Shore: That is a different question, but clearly the whole of industry, both public and private, will have to consider very carefully the conclusions reached by the Jones Committee.

Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Mr. Grierson)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the resignation of Mr. Grierson as chief executive of the Industrial Re-organisation Corporation.

Mr. Shore: On 27th October, Mr. Ronald Grierson tendered, and I accepted, his resignation as Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of the I.R.C. The reasons for the resignation were made clear in the published exchange of letters beween Mr. Grierson and myself.

Mr. Mills: Would the Minister confirm that the main reason for Mr. Grierson's resignation, as stated in an article in the Spectator, was dissatisfaction with the Government's Industrial Expansion Bill and considerable dissatisfaction with the relationship between Government and industry, which has made his job totally impossible?

Mr. Shore: All I can say is that no such implication emerges from his letter of resignation.

South-West Economic Planning Council

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs by what date he expects departmental consideration of the report of the South-West Economic Planning Council, A Region with a Future, to be completed.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the Government's views on the Draft Strategy for the South-West will be published and made available to the public.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): The recommendations in the Economic Planning Council's report are under active consideration and the Government's reply will be given to the Council as soon as possible.

Dr. Dunwoody: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that these considerations will be completed urgently, because the continuing uncertainty, especially about the boundaries of the development area, the spine road to the South-West and industrial development in the far South-West, is giving rise to real difficulty and damaging the economy in the development area?

Mr. Williams: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, but he will appreciate that some of the points raised in the report raise issues the implications of which extend far beyond the boundaries of the South-West.

Mr. Dobson: Can my hon. Friend possibly go a little further today and give the House at least an idea that the Department will deal speedily with the growth points which are needed in the South-West? Further, is the resignation of the Chairman of the South-


Western Regional Planning Council likely to affect his Department's consideration?

Mr. Williams: The answer to the second part of the question is, no, Sir. My right hon. Friend and I had discussions with the Chairman on 8th November. As for the speed of progress, I can assure my hon. Friend that no time will be wasted.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the report said that the spine road was the key to the problems of the South-West. What progress has been made with that road in the life of this Government?

Mr. Williams: That question—

Mr. Cooke: None.

Mr. Williams: —will have to be put to the Ministry of Transport. It was one of the matters discussed last week with Professor Tress.

Mr. Nott: When his Department has completed its deliberations, will it implement speedily those items in the report with which the Government agree?

Mr. Williams: The items with which we agree will be implemented with the speed necessary for their effect on the area.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to appoint a successor to Professor Tress as chairman of the South West Economic Planning Council.

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whom he is appointing to succeed Professor R. C. Tress as Chairman of the South West Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Shore: Professor Tress does not formally relinquish his appointment as Chairman of the South West Economic Planning Council until April 1968. In the coming months I shall be giving careful consideration to the appointment of his successor.

Mr. Ellis: In view of the importance of continuity in this post, will my right hon. Friend say by what date he expects to make the appointment? Will he resist any claims from any particular area within the region in this matter, remem-

bering that we want the best possible man for the job, from wherever he may come?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right to insist that we have the best possible man for this appointment, rather than be influenced by the claims of particular areas. I hope to be able to establish a suitable successor in the next few months.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the fact that so little action has been taken under the present Chairman, will the Minister see that someone who really understands the problems of the South West is appointed, remembering that we want action quickly?

Mr. Shore: I do not believe that the hon. Lady really means to be discourteous to Professor Tress, who has, by general agreement, done a splendid job in the South West. [Interruption.] I believe that the report has been widely welcomed as a constructive contribution to thinking about the problems of the region. I shall, of course, try to find a suitable person to succeed him.

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he will take to assist the South West Economic Planning Council to make specific proposals for the Northern Sub-Region that includes Bristol, in view of the fact that there were no such proposals in the plan, A Region with a Future.

Mr. Alan Williams: The proposals of the South West Economic Planning Council for the Northern Sub-Region have already been set out in paragraphs 406–411 of its Report.

Mr. Ellis: Is not the Minister aware that in the Report it was stated that any conclusions of this kind for the Northern Sub-Region, which includes Bristol, Swindon and these areas, could not be arrived at? Will he take steps to see that action of the kind that is needed is taken? Does he appreciate that it is not a question of implementing a report, because we have not even got the proposals yet?

Mr. Williams: The point made in the Report was that until the Severnside study had been completed, a detailed, comprehensive strategy was not possible. On


the other hand, it was pointed out that the existing plans of local authorities for the northern area were at present inadequate. The Council is itself initiating moves to co-ordinate the work of the planning authorities with a view to meeting the foreseeable needs.

Mr. Webster: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. 27, Dame Joan Vickers.

Mr. Webster: On a point of order. Is there any criterion about the number of supplementaries you accept when there is great interest in a matter, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: This is a difficult task and I do the best I can. Dame Joan Vickers.

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in view of the resignation of the Chairman of the South-West Economic Planning Council, if he will now consider moving the office of the Council from Bristol to Plymouth.

Mr. Alan Williams: No, Sir. These two matters are not connected.

Dame Joan Vickers: Will the hon. Gentleman consider putting the office in Plymouth, because the South-West is the area in which there is the most need for development? Is he aware that Bristol is a very rich area and that we in the far south-west want attention directed to our problems?

Mr. Williams: I perfectly understand the hon. Lady's interest in this matter, but I am sure she appreciates that it is imperative, for the efficient working of these councils, that they should be near the regional offices of Departments—and this one is in Bristol.

Hunt Committee

Mr. Derek Page: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make arrangements for the Hunt Committee to visit the areas of the country having below average incomes.

Mr. Shore: It is for the Committee to decide whether visits to any type of area will help them in their inquiries. My Department is, of course, ready to assist

in making any arrangements the Committee may need.

Mr. Page: Bearing in mind that low earnings must be the main factor to be considered by the Hunt Committee, does the Minister not agree that a visit to areas such as Norfolk to see the difficulties encountered by many thousands of people is essential if the problem is to be understood fully.

Mr. Shore: This is a matter for the Committee to decide. It has invited evidence, but should it feel that that written evidence could be supplemented usefully by visits to the area, no doubt it will consider such a proposal.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: When does the Minister expect the Report of this Committee?

Mr. Shore: That is another question. I am not able yet to give an effective answer, because the Committee had its initial meeting only in October of this year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Can the Minister clear up one point? If we are to have, overall, a larger measure of unused resources, and if the development areas are to do better, does it not follow that the Government have in practice abandoned the grey areas?

Mr. Shore: I am not quite clear how the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at that conclusion, nor on what he bases the assumptions on which the latter part of his question was put.

Mr. Iain Macleod: On the Chancellor's speech.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made by the Committee set up under Sir Joseph Hunt to consider the question of grey areas; and when the Committee is likely to report.

Mr. Haseldine: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he anticipates receiving the report of the Committee set up under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Hunt; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answer given on 9th November to similar Questions by my


hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) and the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke).—[Vol. 753, c. 1235–7.]

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Report in anxiously awaited in South Wales, particularly in Newport, which employs many people from the mining valleys of Monmouthshire, and that firms in the town are waiting for this Report before deciding on future development plans?

Mr. Shore: I have already made it clear that the Hunt Committee will produce its report as quickly as possible. Of course we know, as does the Hunt Committee, just how welcome any early report would be.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Derbyshire we, too, are patiently waiting for this report but that our patience is fast running out? In Derbyshire we have 7 per cent. unemployment in one of the grey areas, and by the time that we get the report our percentage will be higher than that of most of the development districts in the country?

Mr. Shore: The Committee was set up only this summer. It was announced in July and formed during the summer, and it met for the first time on 5th October. The Committee is getting ahead as quickly as it possibly can.

Mr. Clegg: What will the Hunt Committee find out which his Department and the regional economic planning councils do not already know?

Mr. Shore: One of the points with which it will need to deal is the criteria by which one can define an intermediate area. As the hon. Member may have noticed from Questions on the subject, hon. Members are speaking against a background of very different conditions in different parts of the country, and there is a big job to be done of analysis before proposals can be made.

General Electric Company and Associated Electrical Industries (Merger)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the rôle of the

Industrial Re-organisation Corporation in the proposed merger between General Electric Company and Associated Electrical Industries.

Mr. Shore: No, Sir.

Mr. Mills: While welcoming G.E.C.'s success, surely it must be wrong for a statutory corporation to become involved in recommending a take-over bid? Would the Minister consider laying down the kind of criteria on which the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation can intervene in future cases?

Mr. Shore: It is right that the Corporation itself should decide its policy towards particular proposals. Therefore, that was really a question for the Corporation.

Mr. William Price: Is the Minister aware that this merger is a very serious matter for those of us who have A.E.I. factories in our constituencies? What assurances did the Government seek through the I.R.C. about the future welfare of those factories?

Mr. Shore: The I.R.C. knows of the Government's concern for the objectives of regional policy.

National Plan

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will publish a statement of the planning assumptions on which the National Plan is being prepared.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in the preparation of the Government's proposed National Plan; when it is expected to be produced; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shore: Planning work is proceeding and I hope to have a further substantive discussion in N.E.D.C. on the basis of this work early in January. This discussion will be confidential and I cannot make any statement at this stage about the likely date or content of any future published document.

Mr. Marten: That did not answer the Question, which was, what are the planning assumptions on which they are working? Surely, after 15 months of cooking-up the second edition of the


National Plan, some planning assumptions must be known. Why is the public denied the industrial and business experience of the right hon. Gentleman? Have these planning assumptions been blown off course, or what?

Mr. Shore: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the factors in making firm assumptions is the likely behaviour of the balance of payments—[Interruption.] I would have thought that hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House would have recognised the importance of that factor in planning. Quite clearly, in the last few months there have been a number of unexpected developments. I refer particularly to the effect on our balance of payments of the Arab-Israeli war and the consequences there.

Mr. Higgins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the whole basis of planning is to examine alternative assumptions so that the different policies can be appraised? Can he confirm that the idea of setting a main target as a basis for the assumptions, which was the basis of the Government's abortive plan, has been abandoned completely, and that in future it will be based not merely on a target but on industrial expectations?

Mr. Shore: The next plan could usefully include both those approaches.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what National Plan he is talking about? Is it the old one, and is it to be resurrected, or is it a new one? If it is new, will it go the same way as the old one did?

Mr. Shore: It is on that latter point that, clearly, we would wish to do all that we could to avoid that contingency.

Mr. David Howell: Can the Minister tell us whether Parliament is to have a chance of re-examining the assumptions or underlying thinking in the new plan before it appears as a finished document?

Mr. Shore: I hope to be able, though I cannot say when, to report to the House. It will be as soon as I can after I have had consultations with the N.E.D.C.

Mr. Heffer: Can my right hon. Friend indicate whether the new plan will concern itself not only with indicative planning but with physical planning on the

basis of some Socialist direction of industry into the areas which really need it?

Mr. Shore: The planning measures, as distinct from the framework of the plan, have been pursued as originally laid down in the 1965 plan. Not only have they been pursued; they have been reinforced by various legislative acts of this Government during the past year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the Minister clearly repudiate what has just been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and make it quite clear that there is no question either of the direction of labour or of industry in the Government's thoughts?

Mr. Shore: There is no intention to direct labour, but when the right hon. Gentleman says that there should be no direction of industry, he must take account of the fact that so far as a substantial sector of industry is concerned—the public sector—the Government have considerable ability to influence location, and it would be wrong if they did not consider how best to use this.

South-West Region

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps are being taken to alleviate unemployment in the South-Western Region this winter.

Mr. Alan Williams: The South West Region as a whole will benefit from the moderate measures of reflation which the Government have already taken. The programme of minor public works authorised for the development areas, will help to alleviate unemployment in the South-Western Development Area. The work which can be carried out there this winter should amount to £1·9 million.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for that very welcome news, but will he still keep in mind the need to bolster even that programme a little more this winter, dealing more with communications and social works of various kinds, particularly building, which will be very valuable to stop unemployment, which will be above average?

Mr. Williams: In addition to these measures, there will be the initial effect of the regional employment premium, and


the underlying trend, seasonally adjusted, for unemployment is showing an improvement in that region. The figures of I.D.C.s approved so far this year show that in the first three quarters approvals totalled more than in the full 12 months of last year.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman realise that not only is there concern about unemployment but that all aspects concerned with the South-West are creating so much concern among South-West Members that it would be worth while to have a debate on the whole subject? Unless he does not want the views of hon. Members, would he appeal to the Leader of the House for such a debate?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be aware that we have held meetings with Members for the areas concerned. We have one such meeting today in respect of another region. The business of the House is not under my control. There have been debates on this in the past.

Northern Region

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make an examination of the placing of Government contracts with a view to work being directed to the Northern Region and other development districts.

Mr. Urwin: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state the capital value of Government contracts placed in the Northern Region in each year since 1960 and the nature of such contracts; what is the estimate for the current year; and what steps he proposes to take to secure greater direction to the Region.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action has been and is being taken regarding the placing of Government contracts with a view to alleviating unemployment in Sunderland.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what special action, including the placing of orders by Government and nationalised industries, is being taken to reduce the heavy male unemployment in South Shields and other parts of Tyneside.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) on 7th November, firms in development areas are invited to tender for Government contracts wherever possible: if they are not successful in obtaining the whole order they are given part of it provided they can meet a specified price and their offer is satisfactory otherwise. The operation of this scheme is being kept under review. Sunderland, South Shields and Tyneside, like the rest of the Northern Region, stand to benefit from this scheme as well as from the substantial measures of regional assistance which are now available.
I regret that information about the value and nature of such contracts placed in the region since 1960 is not available.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we welcome his Answer, it does not go far enough, and that what is needed is an examination of the methods of Government agencies and Departments in placing orders and seeing that firms in these areas are not only encouraged but assisted to have these contracts?

Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend. Government procurement policy is already aimed at contributing as effectively as possible to regional development policy and we will continue to examine whether more can be done in that respect. The nationalised industries are, of course, well aware of the Government's regional policies, and in the recent fuel White Paper the Government made it clear that they
… expect the fuel industries to use their purchasing power to support regional development wherever practical.

Mr. Urwin: I also thank my right hon. Friend for his Reply. Is he aware that, as a result of the implications of the White Paper to which he referred, the responsibilities devolving upon him for the creation of more jobs are increasing? Is he also aware that there is a large area of unused factory space in the Northern Region, some of which would be admirably suited for the


channelling of Government contracts of this kind?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will, of course, know that we are now designating special areas even within the development areas, and we will do every-think possible to attract more industry into such areas. We are well aware of the problem of empty factories. The Board of Trade and other Departments are now extensively advertising the fact that they are available and we will do everything possible to see that they are tenanted.

Mr. Willey: In his examination of this difficult problem, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of establising machinery to provide for a sensible discrimination in favour of particular firms in places of especial difficulty?

Mr. Lee: This depends on the type of firm which becomes available. I was looking at one in my hon. Friend's constituency the other day which was utterly admirable, as it did highly skilled work. The directors told me that they would not go back to the South or the Midlands even if the opportunity presented itself. We want the firms, in other words, which will go in and provide highly skilled and technologically based industry. The wider that we can advertise this and the many advantages offered by the Government now the better.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Has my right hon. Friend been in special contact with the Ministry of Defence about defence contracts, which could be of considerable importance to factories on Tyneside, my constituency among them, where there is a great shortage of labour and uneconomic use at present of the available machinery?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. All the Government Departments with contracts to let are looking at this important point urgently, and we do not despair of getting a bigger number there.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had not been so foolish as to deflate the areas with high unemployment, we would not now face the terrible problems of trying to reflate them?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman's question is misplaced. Contrary to the actions of the Tory Government, we did not deliberately deflate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Sir G. Nabarro: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about procurement policy and the location of industry, is he having proper regard for the fact that his own party's proposal is to diminish the coal mining labour force by 300,000 men in eight years? Can he re-employ all these in other industries by means of these policies?

Mr. Lee: The Government's policy is to expend a great deal of public money on getting the coal industry viable.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Would the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the statistics on which future reports will be based? Is he aware that just this week the Chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council publicly complained that he was not told of the Government's intentions and plans for the northern coalfields until the end of last week, and then by Lord Robens? Does this not make a nonsense of Labour's economic planning policy?

Mr. Lee: No, Sir, it does not. The Chairman in question knew of the Government's plans, but he did not know of the projections—if I may call them that—of those plans produced by Lord Robens.

Mr. Woof: Is my right hon. Friend really aware that in the past ten years areas like the one which I have the honour to represent have been physically and socially demoralised by pit closures? Is he further aware that they have been gobbled up, as though by a greedy duck in a pit pond, without engendering any activity or a new industrial base? Would he not be prepared to visit the area to see for himself what needs to be done?

Mr. Lee: I am prepared to come, as my hon. Friend knows, but the special arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend a week or two ago comprise a far greater degree of effort by Government than anything ever seen in Britain before.

Mr. Higgins: Following on the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott), what level of unemployment do


the Government regard as acceptable in the region covered by this report this winter and, in the long run, after redeployment?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member will be glad to know that the actual incidence of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, is falling and not rising.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he has to reduce the unemployment situation in the Northern Region this winter; and what conclusions he has drawn from his recent official visit to the area.

Mr. Frederick Lee: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 1st November, a substantial programme of minor public works has been authorised for the development areas this winter. The work to be carried out in the Northern Region during this period should amount to about £7 million. In addition, payment of regional employment premium began in October and will be worth about £28 million in the year for the Region. These measures, together with the deferment of certain pit closures planned for this winter, will go a considerable way to alleviating the unemployment situation in the Region this winter.
I have already made two official visits to the Region and will be making a third before the end of the month. I am convinced by what I have seen and heard that the wide range of measures introduced by the Government provide a sound basis for the future development of the Region.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend take note of two further points following my expression of gratitude for his very comprehensive statement in answer to my Question? First, will he examine the possibility of bringing forward any Government contracts which are still outstanding? Secondly, will he please look again at the B.O.T.A.C. applications so as not to make the mistake made under the Hailsham Report and instead, to ascertain the viability of these firms, because in the area—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Leadbitter: —in the area—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members have Questions to put.

Mr. Leadbitter: We do not want in the area firms such as pitch fibre pipes which cost shareholders in my constituency and elsewhere many thousands of pounds.

Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need firms of substance to go into the area. Of course, the gentleman who advises from B.O.T.A.C. must make quite sure of the position. On the other hand, we hope that the procedure can be somewhat streamlined. To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, he will know that the £7 million to which I referred can be spent on road work and so on and that this could possibly assist some factories which at the moment are unoccupied because of the lack of communications.

Mr. Tinn: Are the Government making a study with a view to implementing that part of our programme which promised to set up publicly-owned firms to occupy some of the factories which are at present standing idle and which were built by public money?

Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir. We are studying every possible angle in this matter. I have answered Questions today about private enterprise and the part that the nationalised industries can play. We will also study the public sector in the way sought by my hon. Friend.

North-East Coast

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action has been taken on the report presented on outstanding problems on the North-East Coast.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The only recent Report of which I am aware is the Northern Economic Planning Council's regional study: "Challenge of the Changing North". A copy of the Government's reply has been placed in the Library of the House.

Dame Irene Ward: Does that reply mean, as this is a very old Report, that the Government have not had a report either from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or from Lord Robens on the position of the coal industry? Why is he talking about a dead duck report when what we want and are waiting for is decision on certain problems which


have been spread all over the North of England?

Mr. Lee: I am sorry that the hon. Lady thinks that the Report is a dead duck. We do not. We are working on a number of recommendations and the Northern Planning Council is working on others. So far I have visited the region on only two occasions, and I do not feel myself competent to issue a comprehensive report.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is the Minister aware that, unlike hon. Members opposite, I think that "Challenge of the Changing North" is a handsome swan? Is he further aware that we in the regions are extremely disappointed that up to now none of these first-class recommendations has been accepted and implemented? Will he give a guarantee that he will look again at this Report in order to implement some of the very fine recommendations contained in it?

Mr. Lee: I do not agree that none of the recommendations is being implemented. At least three of them which were directed to the Government are in the course of implementation. A number of the recommendations were not to the Government but were for organisations within the region and for the Planning Council, and they, too, are being implemented.

Mr. Higgins: Will the Minister now say what level of unemployment he regards as acceptable?

Mr. Lee: We are not accepting any level of unemployment. We are trying to get rid of all of it.

Sunderland (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking pursuant to the visit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Sunderland.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We are pursuing the matters raised during my visit with the Departments concerned.

Mr. Willey: Have the Government made any progress in one of the matters which he raised—the possibility of the Government placing direct orders for merchant shipping?

Mr. Lee: I cannot give a report to the House about that issue. The matters which I discussed in Sunderland will depend largely on the speed with which we can get the shipping firms themselves to act together on these matters, and obviously I am unable to report about that at this stage.

Mr. Bagier: Is it not obvious that the private sector in industry has failed to react in any quantity to the many financial inducements placed before it to move into the area? Does not this make out a case that the Government should use far more its sanction of Government purchasing power?

Mr. Lee: I hope that my hon. Friend heard my last Answer on this subject. It is far too soon to say that private industry has not accepted the added inducements of the last few weeks. As I have said, we shall do everything we can about procurement policy, and the nationalised industries are co-operating.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Have not the Government yet hoisted it on board that the effect of the inducements which they have introduced is substantially less than that of the inducements which they have replaced, and that, in particular, the loss of free depreciation in the development districts is a substantial loss which the Government have done nothing to make up?

Mr. Lee: That last inducement was not introduced until the winter of 1963. As a matter of fact, the Conservative Government gave no inducements. They deliberately ran down the development areas.

South-East Economic Planning Council

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why no members of the majority party on the Greater London Council have been invited to serve on the South-East Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Alan Williams: The members of the economic planning councils are appointed as individuals and not on a representative basis. Local authority changes do not therefore automatically lead to changes in the membership of planning councils. However, my right hon. Friend fully recognises the unique


rôle of the Greater London Council in the affairs of the South-East and the value of close co-operation with the Economic Planning Council. He therefore proposes to appoint an additional member to the Council.

Mr. Hunt: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that when such matters as road networks and town planning are being discussed it is important that the voice of the Greater London Council should be heard? In that respect, may we thank him for his reply?

Yorkshire

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he has to prevent further deterioration of the grey areas in Yorkshire.

Mr. Shore: The prospects of these areas will improve with the coming upswing in the economy of the country as a whole, but I am continuing to study their problems.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in Yorkshire we are very much dissatisfied with the Government's lack of attention to the grey areas of the region? Is he not further aware that, due to the closing down of the older industries, in the next decade these grey areas will become black areas? May we expect early results from the attention which we hope we shall be given?

Mr. Shore: It is precisely because the Government recognised that there were areas of the country outside the development areas which had deep-seated problems that they took the step of setting up the Hunt Committee. I have reason to believe that the Yorkshire and Humberside Council will be submitting evidence to the Hunt Committee on parts of the Yorkshire region.

North-East Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will state his plans for the further development of the trade, industry and commerce and employment resulting from and following the recent visit to northeast Scotland of the First Secretary of State.

Mr. Shore: The Government already have a wide-ranging plan to improve economic conditions in Scotland and the recent performance of the economy there shows that it is beginning to work.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the present plans are quite inadequate and that they are not stopping the drift South of trade, industry and employment? Will he devise new plans to solve the problem of improving the economic situation of North-East Scotland?

Mr. Shore: I believe that the measures that have been taken to assist Scotland, as well as other development areas, will have the effects which we all want, will particularly lead to a reduction of unemployment and will lead to the growth of the economy in Scotland. I have noticed, as my hon. and learned Friend no doubt has, that the relative position in Scotland has, on the whole, been rather better than in other development areas. That is certainly the case at this stage.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the most effective and thoughtful part in any such plans for the North of Scotland would be the suspension during this winter of the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Shore: That may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he has no evidence with which to support it.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will wait until the end of Question Time to put her point of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS AID

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with coordination between the overseas aid programme and other fiscal and trade policies; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. All aspects of Government policy towards the less developed countries are the subject of consultation between the Ministers concerned.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the worsening economic position of the under-developed world dwarfs our own economic difficulties and that there is no point in our giving aid with one hand and then shutting out under-developed countries' products with the other?

The Prime Minister: I had some difficulty in hearing all of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I got his final words. We are all concerned, and have been for many years, about the effect on the purchasing power and standard of living of the developing countries when, for example, commodity prices fall. That is why successive Governments in this country have tried to get a more sane commodity policy in international affairs.

Mr. Ridsdale: As this country is in such need of overseas aid, will not the Prime Minister give way to a Government who will inspire national confidence and —[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of assumptions about a subject on which I gather a Question is to be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that increasing efforts will be made to channel our aid through the multilateral agencies of the United Nations rather than through individual bilateral agreements?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and again this has been the policy of successive Governments in this country, so far as has been possible. However, we should not underrate the enormous importance of some of our bilateral aid programmes, particularly to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman call a conference of Commonwealth Finance and Trade Ministers before the next U.N.C.T.A.D. conference in 1968 so that the Commonwealth can work together in this sphere?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that these questions were discussed at the September conference of Commonwealth Finance Minis-

ters. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will bear his suggestion in mind. He will know that a goodwill mission of high-level representatives of six developing countries, led by Mr. Jayawardene of Ceylon, is touring advanced countries. He will be in London tomorrow and I shall be discussing these matters with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what fresh initiatives he has taken in recent months towards a solution of the Vietnam problem.

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are in constant touch with the Governments concerned and are always ready to take the initiative should there appear to be any chance of bringing peace to Vietnam.

Mr. Marten: In view of that situation, could the right hon. Gentleman now quite simply give the House of Commons a firm assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the United States Administration in their fight for freedom in Vietnam?

The Prime Minister: I have stated our position on a number of occasions. Our aim and duty, as co-Chairman, is to bring the parties to the conference table. Everything else will be subordinate to that question. I strongly support the recent initiative taken by the President of the United States in his San Antonio speech, in which, I thought, he made clear again the basis on which such talks could take place; and we shall support them.

Mr. Mendelson: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that this would be an appropriate time for Her Majesty's Government to identify themselves with the advice given by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to President Johnson—to stop the bombing so that negotiations may be started—and so join the Governments of Canada, Sweden and many other of our allies in such a move?

The Prime Minister: I only wish that Hanoi would accept the views of the vast majority of the United Nations, including the Secretary-General, that they should come to thrash out these matters under the leadership of the Secretary-General at the United Nations. This is one of


the difficulties. President Johnson has said that he will stop the bombing and is ready to stop the bombing, provided it leads to talks and provided that military advantage is not taken of that situation; and I think that that is reasonable.

Mr. Thorpe: As a co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, do we take the view that the continuation of bombing will make it more or less likely that the North Vietnamese will come to the conference table?

The Prime Minister: As a co-Chairman, our job is to get the parties together, and we have made a number of initiatives to that end. More than two years ago we said that the bombing ought to stop and that the infiltration from the north ought to stop. Had we been listened to, a great deal of unnecessary bloodshed and misery on both sides would have been avoided.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the uncompromising attitude of Hanoi, the next bombing pause will be extremely important and that, if it is to succeed, it should be for a prolonged period and not necessarily confined to Christmas or the New Year?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware of the efforts which Mr. Kosygin and I made to extend the Tettruce—the new year truce—last February; and to use that as a means of getting the parties to the conference table. I cannot at the moment foreshadow what might happen during what we hope will be pauses in the fighting both at Christmas and the Vietnamese New Year.

Mr. Emery: In any initiative he may take, will the Prime Minister ensure that he stays in close co-operation with the Australian Government—who are themselves so committed to the fight in Vietnam—so that nothing we do acts against their Commonwealth interests?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We always keep in the closest touch with all Commonwealth Governments in these matters. The Australian Government were very strong supporters of the Commonwealth initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government two years ago—not supported, I think, by all hon. Mem-

bers opposite. We have certainly kept in touch with them, and have had their support in every initiative we have taken since.

Mr. Molloy: As there seems to be no end to this merciless, horrid war, which is causing so much anguish in the United States as well as in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend now, in the name of humanity, see President Johnson, to commence a fresh initiative to end this horrid conflict?

The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the nature of the war and the suffering caused to both sides by the fighting. I am in close touch with President Johnson on this matter and have been at all times. But, of course, for an initiative to be successful means a response from both sides.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy regarding the level of unemployment.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what is the overall policy of the Government as to the level of unemployment; and what instructions he has given to Ministers about the precise level at which unemployment should be maintained countrywide.

The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to my speech in the debate on the Address on 31st October, and to the Answers I gave to Questions on 9th November.—[Vol. 753, c. 24; c. 1241; c. 1245.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the situation has changed somewhat in the last few days? Is it not the fact that the Government have been asked to give specific commitments on the level of unemployment and on spare capacity in the months ahead as the price for additional support of the £, and should not these commitments first be discussed by the House?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question—based on a certain amount of Press gossip—is "No"; and that Her Majesty's Government will take every action necessary to


achieve and maintain full employment, to which we are committed.

Mr. Heffer: In my right hon. Friend's replies to Questions in the House on the occasion to which he refers, he used the word "realistic". Could he define precisely what "realistic" means in terms of unemployment? Is he not aware of the fact that whatever is done in support of work in the development areas is undermined by the general deflationary policy at present being pursued by the Government?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that the economy is now on the turn and showing strong signs of moving upwards—[Laughter.]—I will remind hon. Members of that ill-informed tittering quite shortly. This is now being shown both in relation to production—the progress of a number of industries—and in relation to the changing trend in the employment figures.
When I used the word "realistic" I was dealing with the position of certain prosperous areas in the Midlands and the South where, in recent booms, the figure of unemployment has been 0·5 per cent. or 0·6 per cent., and I mentioned the consequences that flowed from it. I do not believe that that is realistic. I believe that equalisation of employment opportunities in the development areas could lead to a realistic figure much lower in the development areas but higher in some of the other, prosperous, areas than in recent booms and times of labour famine.

Mr. Ridley: Is it really true that yesterday the British delegation to the O.E.C.D. said that the Government expected that unemployment would not drop below 2 per cent. during the whole of 1968?

The Prime Minister: I am not informed on what was said, but I would be very glad to check up on the point. I had not myself seen the report—

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Lady will wait for the rest of the answer. The latest estimates I have seen of the development in the economic situation, in particular industries and nationally, should lead to a lower figure than that on present policies; and the hon. Gentle-

man will know that only this week, for example, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced sweeping new policies for the development areas.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that the phasing of pit closures with the introduction of new male-employing industry in those areas subject to closures is sufficiently adequate to prevent—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hamilton: After that typical bit of insolence from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may repeat my supplementary question. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the phasing of the closure of pits with the introduction of new male-employing industry in those areas is sufficiently adequate to prevent the creation of considerable unemployment in those areas?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will by this time have studied the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about special measures taken to help areas of most acute concern, which include most of the colliery closure areas. This will take time, of course, but we have intensified the measures now being taken far beyond anything ever done before. If my hon. Friend was suggesting the holding up of closures until these measures bring more employment, that raises wide questions of fuel policy which, I think, the House will debate in the very near future.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally implausible nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SPEECH)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in London on Tuesday, 31st October, on the salaries of management in private industry represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend's speech on that occasion related to questions of the United Nations, the Alliance and other aspects of foreign affairs and, of course, fully represented the views of Her Majesty's Government. The references to the salaries of certain industrialists, which were separate from his main theme, were personal observations which did not purport to represent Government policy.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would not the Prime Minister agree that it was tactless for the Minister of Technology to attack American firms for trying to attract British scientists and executives by offering them at least an adequate salary, when the Foreign Secretary is allowed to say that senior executives are paid a jolly sight too much, without anyone trying to correct the impression given?

The Prime Minister: I thought that my right hon. Friend's démarche in relation to Westinghouse and in relation to Dounreay was one of the finest things I have seen for a very long time. I am sorry if the hon. Member supports Westinghouse against—[Interruption.]—in what can only mean that Westinghouse by paying slightly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I am doing so. The hon. Member referred to Westinghouse and he is going to get his answer. If it is Westinghouse policy by slightly higher salaries to buy British scientists whose training has been very expensive and has been borne by this country and who of course will carry a great deal of the secrets by which the British publicly-owned Atomic Energy Authority are far ahead of some of these American firms—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the Prime Minister agree that if the Government paid more attention to what was done in private industry the Government would have some chance of getting a competent Chairman of British Railways?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware that only since the passing of the Companies Act has the necessary information on which my right hon. Friend made his animadversions become available.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he had expressed these

sentiments two years ago when scientists left the British aircraft industry where they had been working on TSR2 it would have been helpful to Britain?

The Prime Minister: Yes, at a cost of several hundred million pounds. I remember that many of those, for example, in Preston got redundancy benefits and were back at work in the same firm about six months later. The hon. Member will know that the aircraft industry is now more streamlined and more prosperous and not so dependent on wasteful Government expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (DEVELOPMENT AREAS)

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. May I ask whether the House should take it that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is to answer Questions about development areas, because, if so, I am glad to have won the battle?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

FOREIGN LOAN

Mr. Sheldon (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the $1,000 million loan being negotiated with foreign banks.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I have been asked to reply.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. Is not the Prime Minister in charge of the economy? Could he not answer this Question?

Mr. Speaker: No point of order arises at this moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is trying to do, but I have ruled that no point of order can arise about one Minister answering a Question addressed to another Minister.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While it is common form and generally accepted, as it has been for years, that a Minister may ask another Minister to answer for him in his absence, is it proper, normally, or acceptable that someone else should answer when the Minister concerned is actually present?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not understand the Ruling I gave. The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Callaghan: I understood that the question was transferred to me.
The reply is, No, Sir. It would clearly be wrong for the Government either to confirm or to deny a Press rumour of this kind.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost the entire Press, if not the entire Press, has carried this story? Is he aware that what is particularly concerning hon. Members is the conditions likely to be attached to this loan, since, as the Financial Times put it, a loan of this size and duration is unlikely to be given without considerable conditions whatever may be said for the record and that if this leads to unemployment and lower levels of consumption and a lower standard of living and a wage freeze this measure will be totally unacceptable?

Mr. Callaghan: I have been long enough in this House not to believe everything that I read in the Press, and I would advise my hon. Friend accordingly. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we shall take what decisions are appropriate in the light of our understanding of the needs of the British economy and no one else's. That, at this stage, certainly does not include the creation of any additional unemployment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that continued uncertainty in this matter is the worst of all worlds? Subject to that, until these matters are finalised one way or another, when we would expect to have a full statement immediately in the House by the Government, is he aware that if negotiations are in progress I would not wish to comment?

Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for not wishing to

press me on a loan the conditions about which I have not said any discussion is at the moment taking place. I quite agree that uncertainty and rumour are bad for the exchanges and I hope that some of the speculators get their fingers burned. I did not start the rumours and I do not propose to comment on them. The Press must take full responsibility for anything it prints.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Chancellor aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House always wants to hear both sides.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Chancellor aware that some of us, at any rate, are totally opposed to—[An HON. MEMBER: "Everything."]—this country having further money from foreign bankers?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. I have no further comment to make.

Mr. Thorpe: Whether or not there are negotiations under way, could the Chancellor say for how much longer the Government will rely upon borrowing to maintain confidence in the £? Is he aware that there is a general feeling that to sacrifice full employment and economic expansion for the sacred cow of sterling is something to which many people are opposed?

Mr. Callaghan: That does not arise out of my original Answer.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend understand what all the fuss is about? Have we not been living on borrowed money for the last 20 years?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, but quite recently we have been transferring from one form of obligation into another form.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Chancellor take the earliest opportunity available to confirm or to deny this rumour? Secondly, will he bear in mind that it would probably be better for the country if we borrowed no more money from abroad but decided to live on our own income?

Mr. Callaghan: I understand that it is a long-standing practice of the House that Ministers are not expected to confirm or deny Press statements and hon. Members should not rely on them when putting their questions.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if the difference is between a reduction in public expenditure at home, a wage freeze and the introduction of a regulator and devaluation, devaluation is preferable to those three things?

Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to or to subtract from anything I have said on previous occasions on the subject of devaluation and, in any case, it does not arise from my original Answer.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The Chancellor's original Answer is quite incredible. Will he clear up whether negotiations are or are not progressing? When he makes his statement, will he give full details of all the outstanding short-term loans which this country has incurred and which have not been revealed to the public?

Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to my original Answer.

CYPRUS

Mr. Buck (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement con-concerning involvement of British troops under the U.N. command in yesterday's hostilities between Greek and Turkish elements in Cyprus.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): The British contingent which is under complete U.N. command formed the main part of the U.N. force which was involved yesterday when fighting broke out between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. During the fighting a number of U.N. troops were manhandled by the Cyprus National Guard and there was some damage to U.N. equipment.
I am glad to tell the House that a ceasefire has now been arranged and that the National Guard has withdrawn from the positions it occupied during the fighting. The U.N. Force has taken over its vacated positions. There were no British or other U.N. casualties, but the commander of the U.N. force has protested strongly to General Grivas about the behaviour of the National Guard towards the U.N. troops.

Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. It will

come as a relief to the House and the relatives of those serving in Cyprus that there have been no British casualties. Some of us have been able to see recently the magnificent work done by our forces there. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it quite intolerable that our forces should have been subjected to humilation of the kind they suffered yesterday, namely, by being disarmed forcibly, and will he add his voice to the protests? Does he think that we are asking our British forces in Cyprus to do too much with too little?

Mr. Thomson: We made strong and immediate representations in all three capitals with the object of putting an end to the fighting and lowering the tension.
I think that yesterday's incident is a good example of the very important rôle the U.N. peace-keeping force plays in Cyprus and that British troops play within it. The House will be glad, although not surprised, to know that the British forces involved, though often under fire and in constant danger, acquitted themselves very well.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very widespread admiration for the excellent job the U.N. force has done in Cyprus? Is he satisfied that it is adequately equipped for the job?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I think that the whole House shares our admiration for the job the British forces do as part of the U.N. peace-keeping force. I am satisfied that they are adequately equipped for the task.

Mr. Braine: While the whole House will be glad to hear the tribute paid to the United Nations forces in Cyprus, in view of the unhappy episode can the right hon. Gentleman say what rôle the United Nations peace-keeping force, and the British element in particular, is supposed to be serving? Have strong representations been made not merely to the three capitals, but to the United Nations force? Have any instructions been sent to our commanders locally to ensure that there is no repetition of this unhappy episode?

Mr. Thomson: At the moment, a cease-fire has been obtained and we must be glad about that. My right hon. Friend


the Foreign Secretary and I are, of course, in constant touch about the developments with our delegation at the United Nations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is not the disquieting thing that the troops could be disarmed? Should not very strong representations be made to the United Nations command in Cyprus about this?

Mr. Thomson: We are in touch with the United Nations in New York and with the United Nations command in Cyprus about any lessons to be learned from this incident. I think that it underlines the important rôle the United Nations peacekeeping force can play [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This was a very dangerous incident after a period of relative quiet, and the fact that it has been ended so quickly so far—I do not wish to prophesy about what might yet come—is an indication of the usefulness of the U.N. force in Cyprus.

Dr. David Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend agree that so long as there is a despotic military Government in Athens we can expect a recrudescence of unrest in Cyprus? Is not the hazard to which British troops are exposed as a result another powerful argument for taking every action to restore democracy in Greece?

Mr. Thomson: That question goes rather wider than the original Question. I should not like to apportion blame at this stage for yesterday's incident. I am merely concerned to see the ceasefire maintained.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Latey Report on the Age of Majority, which will arise on a Motion to take note of Command Paper No. 3342.

Motion on the British European Airways Corporation (Borrowing Powers) Order.

TUESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill.

Motions on the Double Taxation Relief Orders relating to Malaysia and Belgium, and on the Mink and Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Orders.

Prayers against the New Towns Order, and the Building and Buildings Regulations.

WEDNESDAY, 22ND NOVEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:

Debate on the Economic Problems in the North West, on an Opposition Motion.

Prayer on the Prices and Incomes (Continuous Review) (No. 1) Order.

THURSDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.

FRIDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—The proposed business will be:

Debate on a Motion to approve the Statement on Fuel Policy in Command Paper No. 3438.

Mr. Heath: Could the Leader of the House say why he has found it necessary to change the business for Monday from that which had previously been annouced? Could he also say when he proposes to have the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill?

Mr. Crossman: In answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I thought that it was for the convenience of the House if we had first, on Monday, 27th November, the debate on the fuel policy Command Paper and followed it next day with the Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, so that the two went together and we had the two days together. I thought that that would suit the logic of the House.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I apologise to the House for any inconvenience I have caused. I gather that my right hon. Friend has some late Amendments and that it would be for the convenience of the House to see them in due time to debate them.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it the Government's intention, for the debate on the fuel


policy White Paper on Monday, 27th November, to put down a Motion to approve the White Paper or merely to take note of it?

Mr. Crossman: I thought that I had made it clear that the debate would be on a Motion to approve the White Paper on fuel policy.

Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the fact that it is estimated that more than 80 hon. Members will wish to speak on the White Paper on Monday, 27th November, and/or on the Coal Industry Bill the following day, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to suspend the rule on both days so that no hon. Member on either side is frustrated from a free expression of opinion on this fundamental issue?

Mr. Crossman: I am certainly not prepared to give that kind of blank cheque, nor is it in my power so to do. But I shall consider the possibility. I think that we had better see how Monday goes, and how the speakers are going on Monday. I shall certainly leave it open.

Mr. Swain: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why, although the Motions concerning the last few White Papers on major policy, particularly that on transport, were to note the White Paper, the Motion on the fuel and power White Paper is to approve it? Is he aware that there are quite a few of us in the House who do not approve now, and will not be ready to approve a week on Monday?

Mr. Crossman: It was a matter on which some feeling had been brought to my attention. My hon. Friends question about the drafting of the Motion is not strictly about the business of next week.

Mr. Webster: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the White Paper on the transport of freight and to debate the chairmanship of the British Railways Board?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the White Paper is being published this afternoon, if I remember rightly, and I should have thought that we should look at it first. It is the third of the White Papers. When we have seen them together we can consider how best they shall be discussed.

Mr. Rose: In view of the importance of human rights, would my right hon.

Friend consider setting aside a full day for a debate on Britain's contribution to the upholding of the United Nations Charter on Human Rights?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider demands from all sides. I am not at present aware of the matter justifying a full day's debate, but I should like to bear the point in mind.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On the purely hypothetical supposition that some money may be loaned to this country from overseas, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a full opportunity for an immediate debate and vote on the issue as we had on the issue of the American loan in 1945?

Mr. Crossman: We had better discuss the business for next week, and not the hypothetical business for next week.

Mr. Mendelson: In view of the strategic policy discussions which are going on now with Washington about the Vietnam war, will my right hon. Friend undertake to set aside one full day for a debate on that dangerous situation, so that the House can express its view, and so that the many expressions of opinion in the country, which have been made known in recent weeks, that the British Government should dissociate themselves from American policy there, can find Parliamentary expression?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the increasing demand for a debate on foreign affairs before the Christmas Recess. I will bear in mind the need to make room for it.

Mr. James Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give time for a full debate on the Halliday Report on the inadequacies of the conveyancing system in Scotland?

Mr. Crossman: I always find that in the end I have time to read all the papers that the Government publish. When I have studied this Paper—now that I have had it brought to my attention—I shall reply to the hon. Member.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does my right hon. Friend remember that twice last Session I asked for a debate on the work of the Council of Europe? Is he aware that Her Majesty's Government have the unique record of using the Conventions


of the Council of Europe more than all but two or three of the member countries, which number 18, and yet they have never provided time for a debate? Will my right hon. Friend do better after the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear that point in mind. If we have a debate on foreign affairs it is a subject which can be referred to by hon. Members, but if my hon. Friend feels that it is a topic which should be discussed on its own we can discuss the question through the usual channels.

Mr. Heath: The House has been very patient with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House this afternoon—quite rightly—but I must press the Leader of the House, in the general form, that if there should be any major development in international finance which affects this country he should be ready to rearrange business at short notice.

Mr. Crossman: On the question put in that form, I can give an unequivocal affirmative answer.

Dr. David Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect the second half of the debate on procedure? When we do, will he frame the references so that we can discuss Members' remuneration?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there is any question of my framing any references. As the House knows, we have on the Order Paper a number of Motions which we need to discuss. They are mostly controversial, and I propose that in our next debate on procedure we should take them seriatim and discuss and vote on them one by one.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether we are to have an early debate on the brain drain and on the Jones Report? Does he recall the Motions of censure on the Government of the day, moved by his party when the brain drain was a mere trickle compared with the present flood?

Mr. Crossman: I can remember distinctly the speeches I myself made on that subject. I always take an interest in the subject, but I do not think that

there is any likelihood of that debate occurring before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 33, calling for Specialist Committees for Scottish Affairs?
[That this House calls for the appointment of specialist committees for Scottish affairs.]
Will he consider, before the next debate on procedure, giving further consideration to this matter so that Scotland will have an opportunity of receiving the same treatment in regard to Specialist Committees as does England?

Mr. Crossman: As far as I am concerned, Scotland always has an equal opportunity, but I have to consider not only what I think about it but what the Scots think. I think that my hon. Friend and I have moved forward. We will be having a Specialist Committee on the Department of Education, which will cover the activities of the Scottish Education Department, so we are proceeding step by step.

Mr. Carr: In view of what was said by the Minister of Labour at the close of his statement on Monday, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a further statement on the position in the Royal Docks at the beginning of next week if, alas, the strike is not settled by then?

Mr. Crossman: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon Friend.

Mr. Sheldon: Can my right hon. Friend say whether an opportunity will be given both for a debate and a vote on the possible loan being raised with foreign bankers?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor answered that question so far as it could be answered. As for a debate, I gave a specific undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition which, I think, covered the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: May I ask my right hon. Friend when we are likely to have a debate on Welsh affairs?

Mr. Crossman: I hope to make an announcement on that subject next week.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What are the Government's intentions with regard to the Stansted Order?

Mr. Crossman: I think that I reported last week that that Order is to be considered. It will be some weeks before I can make a statement.

Mr. Gardner: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will put down a Motion for the reappointment of a Select Committee on Agriculture and, at the same time, will he say what consultations he has had on the recommendation by the Committee that it should be appointed by Standing Order rather than Sessional Order?

Mr. Crossman: I think that we shall get the Committee in due course. These are questions for discussion through the usual channels.
As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that I made it clear in the procedure debate that this is still an experimental Committee in its second year and that we shall, as a House, consider what we should do after the Committee has completed its second year on agriculture.

Mr. Turton: On next Monday's debate, is it the intention of the Government to put a Motion on the Latey Report?

Mr. Crossman: It is not our intention to put down a Motion, but it is our intention to have a general debate so that the views of the House on this very important question can be ascertained by the Government before they make up their mind on the whole question.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals to have two separate one-day debates on fuel policy and on the Coal Industry Bill are both welcome and wise? Will he give urgent consideration to the question of allowing extended time for debate on both occasions?

Mr. Crossman: As I told a previous questioner, we had better wait to see how we go on Monday. It may be that we shall need extended time, and if the House wishes it I shall not oppose it.

Mr. John Wells: When may the House expect to have a debate on the coloured Paper about gipsies? A debate was promised during the last Session, but was never forthcoming. Now we have this illustrated White Paper. May we have a debate?

Mr. Crossman: I must say that I also admired the taste of the Paper and found it very interesting, but I cannot promise that this Blue Paper will have an urgent topical discussion by the House.

Mr. Baxter: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and ask my right hon. Friend to give special consideration to the appointment of a Specialist Committee to look after the affairs of Scotland? Notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend has taken steps, they are both too short and too slow, and if he does not take action immediately on this matter he will be swamped by the flood of public opinion.

Mr. Crossman: I am not going to plunge into a discussion of Scottish politics of that kind, but I had the idea that there was an institution called the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific than he has been so far? In the event of there being a debate on any international financial arrangements, can he assure the House that there will be a vote?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot add to the completely clear understanding that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. If there were to be a change in the international situation the House will be able to consider it and come to a conclusion.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend has said that the House can have a debate, but will the House have an opportunity to say whether or not it agrees with the Government's taking an additional loan? We do not want a fait accompli; we want the House to have an opportunity of saying whether or not we should take the loan, before the Government take it.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend must not put words into my mouth. I said that if the international situation so developed there might be a debate. I made no


reference to a loan, of which I know nothing.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing), in which he said that we could not have a debate on the Jones Report concerning the brain drain between now and Christmas? He has found time for a debate on mink and coypus, but we have far more important matters to consider. The Minister of Technology yesterday referred to the stealing by Westinghouse of the lifeblood of this nation, in trying to get nuclear engineers at Dounreay to go to the United States.

Mr. Crossman: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I do not find time for it. The Opposition have a Prayer on this subject.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has just made a grossly misleading statement. The business to which he refers is an affirmative Order and, therefore, business arranged by him. Will he, therefore, abjectly withdraw and apologise?

Mr. Crossman: I do not know about the abjection, but I will make the withdrawal. Yes, it is true that we have to debate it. The answer is that this affirmative Order has to be debated and will be debated in due course. I was asked whether we would find time for a debate in general on the subject, which is important, and the answer is that I do not think we can do so; but that Opposition Members have their facilities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on my Motion about the threat to sell three British ships to foreigners, thereby causing great unemployment and loss here?

[That this House, recognising that the threatened sale by Cunard to foreigners of three more British passenger ships will put those ships in rivalry with British trade, industry and employment and that if such a sale is to take place the British Government should take urgent steps to assist the sale to British owners or, alternatively, to ensure that those three

ships are not sold to foreigners to compete with British ships but should be sold for scrap and the Government should make up the difference in price to the Cunard Company.]

Mr. Crossman: I doubt whether I can find time, but I think that all hon. Members apprehend the importance which my hon. and learned Friend attaches to this subject.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a complete discrepancy between the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the answer that he has given to his hon. Friend about the question of a debate on a possible foreign loan? If there is to be a debate, will the House be enabled to come to a conclusion and vote upon it before the Government take a decision?

Mr. Crossman: I can only say, for the third time, that I gave the Leader of the Opposition what was required and what was necessary, and I think that the House must leave it at that.

Mr. Roebuck: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the possibility of a debate on Motion No. 2, with regard to the Press, in view of the continuing anxiety in Fleet Street and the country?

[That, in view of the continuing reduction in the number of national newspapers in Great Britain, and in the light of the condition of the communication industry in general, underlined by the recent Report (No. 43) of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, a Select Committee be set up to examine the probable scale of the newspaper industry for this country during the next 10 years, with reference to both the national daily and Sunday Press, and to give consideration to the experience of other countries, management-trade union relations, and the question of advertising revenue in relation to total revenue.]

Mr. Crossman: I continue to give consideration to the subject of whether we should debate the Press and to feel that this is one of the subjects which do not at the moment take a very high priority compared with the brain drain, because it is something about which the Government and the House can do comparatively little.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the Motion standing in my name, regarding his conduct? May I ask whether he accepts the terms of my Motion and if so, whether he will act on them?

[That in the opinion of this House no alteration in the official dress of servants of the House should take place without consultation with and the consent of Mr. Speaker, who is charged with the protection of the traditions and liberties of the House and its Members; and considers that the Leader of the House is not empowered to take individual action on matters affecting the tradition of the House without consultation and with the agreement of Mr. Speaker.]

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he accepted the hon. Lady's invitation. She can only ask for time to discuss her Motion.

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Lady is asking for time to discuss a Motion about wigs, I think that it would be better to wait for the next debate on procedure. This is one of the Motions on the Order Paper, and if it is reached it will be discussed and voted on. As I made clear, as Leader of the House I am neutral in this matter.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no second round on Business Questions.

Dame Irene Ward: Then may I move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Winifred Margaret Ewing, for Hamilton.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: The House has no right to be jealous.

SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS (WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY)

Mr. Palmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, after having given you due notice, under the new Standing Order, for the purpose of

discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
the organised attempt of the Westinghouse Electrical Company of America, now being made, to recruit to its service senior British scientists and engineers employed on the development of the fast breeder nuclear reactor of the Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay, an attempt which, if successful, would gravely hinder the technological progress already achieved and be greatly to the advantage of the American company, which is among this country's principal rivals in the nuclear export field.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the organised attempt of the Westinghouse Electrical Company of America, now being made, to recruit to its service senior British scientists and engineers employed on the development of the fast breeder nuclear reactor of the Atomic Energy Authority at Dounreay, an attempt which, if successful, would gravely hinder the technological progress already achieved and be greatly to the advantage of the American company, which is among this country's principal rivals in the nuclear export field.
As the House will be aware, this is the first occasion on which I have been required to give my Ruling under the revised Standing Order No. 9. It was only last Tuesday, 14th November, that the new conditions were agreed to by the House. Under the new rules, which regulate the approach of Mr. Speaker to these difficult problems as much as they do in the case of every other Member, the terms of the Order are different. What used to be a definite matter of urgent public importance now becomes:
a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration".
Before satisfying myself that the matter is proper to be discussed on that ground or not proper, I have virtually set aside many previous precedents, and rule in the light of these new conditions.
On the other hand, the provisions of the new Order prescribe that a Member proposing to move the Adjournment of the House should give notice by 12 o'clock if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for having complied with that condition, so that I have had some time to reflect before giving my decision this afternoon.
The House will also remember, however, that, under the revised Standing Order, Mr. Speaker is directed not to give any reason for his decision. I therefore would ask the House to realise that my decision this afternoon has been reached after full consideration of all that is involved in the hon. Member's application.
I must now rule that the hon. Member's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit its application to the House.

Dr. David Kerr: Further to that point of order. I would ask you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on one matter to which you referred in making your statement, which I accept. That was your reference to your exclusion of "many" of the precedents which had been set under the old Standing Order No. 9. I need not remind the House that the deliberations of the Select Committee on Procedure tried to exclude all the precedents which had restricted debates of this kind. It might be helpful if you could state whether any precedents still remain which you feel bound to consider in reaching a decision under the new Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: I do not believe that it is wise to make any comment whatever. The view of the House was that any reasons would become, in themselves, precedents. This is a danger which, I gather, having studied the debate and the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure—and having given evidence to it —the House wishes to avoid, so I make no comment.

Mr. Palmer: May I be allowed to say that I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration of this matter? However, have you taken into consideration the very urgent letter which was addressed by the Minister of Technology yesterday to the scientists and engineers concerned?

Mr. Speaker: I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that when I said that I had given consideration to this I had indeed given full consideration.

FOREIGN LOAN

Mr. Sheldon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under the new Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
that a loan is being negotiated by the Government with foreign banks.
The new requirements are, as you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration. I believe that it is necessary to give this matter urgent consideration because, as we heard from the Leader of the House this afternoon, there is no guarantee of a vote before negotiations. I think that it is urgent because the loan being negotiated now may well result in a fait accompli being presented to us, with no chance for us to decide the matter ourselves. It is also urgent because, in this complex world of international agreements, one cannot come to this House in the middle of those agreements and ask for the acceptance before going back.
I believe that it is specific, in so far as we know from all the Press reports that negotiations are taking place. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to confirm or deny, we know by the very nature of these negotiations that this is pretty well the standard phrase to say that negotiations are taking place.
When considering its being specific, we are in some difficulty. If raised before agreement has been reached, then it is not quite as specific, but it is extremely urgent. On the other hand, if the agreement is made and then comes before this House, the matter is purely specific but then is not urgent any more. Therefore, there is this balance between being specific and being urgent.
I believe that it is important because, unlike the nature of other loans which we have been granted, we have not been in such economic difficulties as at present, so the conditions for such loans have not been as arduous as the conditions for this loan are almost certain to be. It is important because these measures are even severer than those of 20th July.
I believe that this is important because we have come to an economic climax in the life of two Labour Governments.


This great decision will change the face not only of our economy, but of our social conditions over the next three or four years. It is important, also, because it means that, as a result of this loan, the control over our economy will be exerted by bankers overseas who will be laying down conditions as to what criteria we should or should not meet. These criteria will be much more strenuous than those which we debated when we agreed that Common Market countries could have some control over certain aspects of our actions.
It is important also because this control by overseas bankers is bound to end in lower consumption, wage control, continuing unemployment and possibly increased taxation. It is important because this is bound to be the corollary of bankers investing their money in an economy of which they are suspicious. It is important because few matters have come before us in my short time in the House which may well mark a watershed in the way that the Government operate in the interests of the people.
Whatever may be said and whatever your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, if the new Standing Order No. 9 will not cover matters as grave as this then those of us

who voted so wholeheartedly in favour of changing the Standing Order will be grievously disappointed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
that a loan is being negotiated by the Government with foreign banks.
As I have just informed the House, I have had to take into account the several factors set out in the revised Standing Order No. 9. Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his courteous and considerate observance of the rule, in compliance with which he gave notice to Mr. Speaker before 12 o'clock—indeed, well before 12 o'clock. In his case, also, I have been able to give very full consideration indeed to the matter which he has raised and all the factors surrounding it.
In the light of the new conditions set out in Standing Order No. 9, I have to rule that I am unable to submit his application to the House. I again remind the House that the revised Standing Order does not entitle me to give reasons for my decision.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY], considered

Orders of the Day — COURT LEES SCHOOL

4.18 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst recognising that the welfare of pupils must be the primary concern of the approved school system, regrets the failure of the Home Secretary both to implement the assurances given on his behalf by counsel and to honour the principles of natural justice and the universal practice in the teaching profession by affording adequate opportunities for defence before taking action against the persons and institutions affected by the Gibbens Report.
This is a complicated issue which affects a number of my constituents, and I am afraid that I shall have to burden the House with many details. First, however, it would be only right to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and to his officials, first, for allowing me, when this incident arose, to have a copy of the Report before it was published, "in confidence and as a Privy Councillor", to use the right hon. Gentleman's words; second, for allowing me to telephone him at his home when he was on holiday; and, third, for the subsequent interviews which I have had with him and with his Permanent Under-Secretary.
I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman also for yet another courtesy. On Tuesday, he visited another approved school in my constituency, the Royal Philanthropic Society's School, at Redhill.. I had a letter from his office informing me of his visit, which arrived on the morning of his visit. I had, in fact, already heard from unauthorised channels that this was pending. Unfortunately, I had another engagement and could not accompany him. I trust that this delayed notice is due to dilatoryness in his office and not to any desire to prevent my being present. I only wished that I had been there with him. I might even have persuaded him to visit Court Lees, which lies only about four miles beyond, and meet some of those whose lives he has

so much affected by his decision in August.
This is, as I have said, a difficult and complex issue, on which there was a debate in another place last Session. I think that it is true to say that it did something to clear the air of the fog of rumour, innuendo and suspicion, and, I would say, undesirable publicity which has been hanging over the whole affair. Of course, there were matters which had to be cleared up, many of which still remain dubious. One noble Lord in the debate made two statements of fact about the school one of which was contradicted from the Government Front Bench and the other from the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord's comment was that it was "only a rumour". But still we felt that, in the words and reasons expressed in our Motion, it was quite right that this House, in its turn, should also debate this matter. My comment on the Liberal Amendment is that the issue is still not clarified.
I think that it would be as well if I pointed out what this debate is not about. First, it is not about the issue of corporal punishment in approved schools. I should state my position here. Frankly, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of corporal punishment. I have no strong views. It is a matter which I consider should be left to the experts and to the advice and guidance of those whose task it is to maintain discipline in this difficult area of education in schools in which the ultimate sanction of dismissal is not available.
The fact remains that corporal punishment is today allowed under the rules laid down by the Home Secretary. I ask the House to note that when the board of management was negotiating with the Home Secretary it expressed its willingness to abolish corporal punishment in Court Lees subject to certain conditions. His answer was to sack them. The Home Secretary's position, judging from his statement, is that for the present he retains corporal punishment but expresses the intention to "phase it out". I find this rather an uncouth phrase for so elegant a writer, but I take it that it means that he is anxious to get the credit for the abolition while not incurring the consequent risks.
The second matter which this debate is not about is the question whether


approved schools should or should not be under local authorities. We all have views to be discussed when the legislation in question comes along, but I am sure that the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, would agree that to close a school to implement such a policy piecemeal and in advance of parliamentary approval would be wrong and would show callous unconcern for those at the school.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. Friend said that this debate is not about whether approved schools should be under the local authorities. If some of us think that the whole point behind what has been done is to implement a move to bring in the local authorities, can it be said that this matter should be ruled out of debate?

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I was not suggesting that it was ruled out of debate. That is surely a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and not for me. I was intending to say that it is not a matter that we propose to discuss in the terms of our Motion. What we are debating is whether or not the action of the Home Secretary in closing Court Lees was justified in view of the consequences and the side effects of this decision on both staff and pupils.
Court Lees is in my constituency, a mile or so from my own home. I live roughly one-third of the way between Court Lees and the Royal Philanthropic Society's School. It is a familiar part of the local landscape. It enjoys a very good reputation. It is very well integrated into the community and, as a matter of comment, during the 17 years that I have been a Member I have had only one complaint, many years ago, about something that happened in the school. I know or have met most of the board of management and, unlike the Home Secretary, I have met the staff, including all the persons principally involved in this affair.
Now I must give a very brief summary of events, but I can assure the House that I am not going to try to repeat the whole of the Gibbens Report. There were anonymous letters in the Press making allegations which were quickly identified as referring to Court Lees, and after a preliminary investigation at the

beginning of May an inquiry was held under Mr. Gibbens, a distinguished Queen's Counsel. It is not, as I say, my intention to repeat everything that is in the famous Report by Mr. Gibbens. Nor do I in the main criticise it. On its narrow and limited terms of reference and on the evidence submitted, it would seem to be a fair Report. Many, including myself, consider that wider terms of reference might have produced a different result.
Since its publication, doubts have been raised about the evidence and about the findings which the Home Secretary has refused to consider would justify him in reopening the inquiry, but I must remind the House that an inquiry is not a trial and the report of an inquiry, however fairly conducted, is not a judicial decision.
I ask the House and those Members who are interested to compare the Gibbens Report with Cmnd. 937 of January, 1960, into the riots and disturbances that took place at the Carlton Approved School. I am not in any way suggesting that there is any merit in the length of a report, but it is noteworthy that the Carlton inquiry took 14 days instead of five and the Report itself is two or three times as long. The reason is that the terms of reference at Carlton were far wider.
In paragraph 42, Mr. Durand said:
In considering the management and conduct of Carlton School for the purpose of the inquiry I thought it proper to take as a starting point the date of the full inspection of the school …".
He was referring to the last full inspection.
This had been done four years beforehand—the identical lapse of time as there had been with Court Lees. But to read the two Reports is an interesting comparison. Mr. Durand painted a complete picture of the school, including both management and staff, and no one can read that Report without having, on the broadest and largest canvas, the most remarkable picture of the events and the people involved in those happenings.
Furthermore, the Carlton Inquiry was held in public, whereas Court Lees was held in private. The fact is that in the Court Lees inquiry the terms of reference were deliberately kept narrow. Yet, after the preliminary inquiry, which took place


on the 6th, 7th and 9th May by officials of the Home Office, the Home Office was approached on 17th May by Judge Cohen, the Chairman of the Board of Management, who urged that the terms of reference should be wider to include all aspects of conduct and management and should be held in public.
Did the Home Secretary know that this request had been made? If so, why was this reasonable application refused?
Mr. Durand, in the conclusions of his Report, gives a magisterial summing up of the reasons for and against closure of the school or other disciplinary action, and the Home Secretary of the day acted with this independent advice. The Home Secretary of today closes the school, he does not take independent advice, and it is from these decisions that stem the unhappy consequences which account for the continuing volume of protest against his high-handed action.
For the purposes of this debate we must accept the Gibbens Report. This House cannot today turn itself into a tribunal. It is the Home Secretary's action prior to and following that Report that we are criticising. The fact is that there were admitted breaches of Home Office regulations which cannot be condoned, and some disciplinary action was necessary.
I would now like to give an account of the events leading up to the closure. On 9th May, Mr. Cook, a master at the school, revealed himself as the writer of some pseudonymous letters in The Guardian which had raised the issue, but his identity had already been uncovered.
There was, as I have said, a preliminary inquiry on 6th, 7th and 9th May. Mr. Gibbens was appointed on 15th May, the inquiry was held between 26th and 30th June, and the Home Secretary received the Report on 27th July.
It is understandable that during this period there was considerable tension within the school, and I would emphasise the immense difficulty of the task of maintaining discipline and the unity of the staff under these conditions. The fullest credit is due to all concerned for the fact that no further trouble ensued.
The Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office wrote to Judge Cohen on Friday, 28th July, enclosing a copy of

the Report in the strictest confidence. On Tuesday, 1st August, Judge Cohen attended the Home Office and was informed of the Home Secretary's intention to withdraw the licence. He asked to see the Home Secretary, but an interview was refused. He was told that he could convene a meeting of the managers for the following Saturday, 5th August, but he was obligated to secrecy about the contents and outcome of the Report pending that.
On Tuesday evening, 1st August, Judge Cohen telephoned me. It was a rather baffling conversation. I found it difficult to know really what he was talking about, since he could not divulge the details of the Report. I telephoned the Home Office the next day, indicating my interest, and asked if the Home Secretary would see Judge Cohen and the managers before taking his decision. The Home Secretary, I am glad to say, agreed.
On Saturday, 5th August, the board meeting was held. There was only one copy of the Report amongst the 11 out of 12 managers present. It is hardly surprising that under those conditions no firm conclusions were reached. Meanwhile, I had received a copy of the Report and had read it cursorily.
I spoke to the Home Secretary on the telephone two days before he met the managers. I agreed with him then that the dismissals might be justified, that it was right that Mr. Cook should not be victimised, but that in my view to close the school would be too drastic. It is only right to say that I would now qualify the views I have given since meeting those concerned and having made a further study of the circumstances, but I would not qualify my views with regard to the closure of the school. The Home Secretary assured me that he would go to the meeting with the board of managers with an open mind. I repeated this assurance to Judge Cohen and I had hoped that all was well.
The meeting which took place between the Home Secretary and the board of managers was, presumably, confidential. I have no knowledge of what was said by any of the parties concerned. However, I can deal with the main issues which were obviously involved since the Home Secretary dealt with them at a later interview with me.
I now quote from a report by Judge Cohen:
I attended with other members of the Board at the Home Office and urged strongly that we should be given a week to consider the matter and make proposals, but the Home Secretary insisted on keeping to his original timetable.
The fact is that the Home Secretary would not wait a week. He could not offer even three days' grace. He was going abroad on the Wednesday, so Court Lees was closed—butchered to make an Italian holiday. That is why no time was given to the board to consider the matter again.
On Monday, 7th August, the Report was published, but even its publication and information to the school was handled with ineptitude. A meeting of the staff was convened at 3 o'clock at which officials, who have been described to me as very embarrassed, explained these proposals to a bewildered staff. The meeting was, understandably, lengthy. It lasted three hours. On emerging some of the staff discovered that their wives had already learned of the closure from the reporters and cameramen thronging the school, many of whom had copies of the Report, which was not given to the staff and had been denied to the managers two days before. It is a slight reflection almost of our times that the boys themselves learned from their transistor radios.
So it happened that on 8th August officials moved into the school and, in three days, the boys were scattered to other destinations.
The Home Secretary may say that he had to act quickly. I would entirely agree with him after the Report was published, but before the event was there so much hurry that a week would have mattered if the right solution had been produced? The school had been living under the shadow of this inquiry for over two months, and there had been no trouble.
Because of haste, the school was closed. What were the consequences? First, 40 or 50 staff not implicated in the inquiry had their employment jeopardised. The Home Secretary hopes that most will be re-employed by the Surrey County Council. Does he take responsibility for any of those not implicated in the inquiry if they are not taken on by the Surrey County Council? I hope that he will

answer that question. At best, the staff are to be shunted like railway trucks from a known employer in whom they have confidence and by whom they were engaged to an unknown employer. The House must know that the staff are almost unanimous in loyalty both to the board of managers and to the headmaster.
There are other more dire consequences. About 116 boys were dispersed. About 70 were sent to other schools, surely in defiance of all the principles of child care, to which security and continuity of environment must be essential. They were uprooted at short notice from familiar surroundings, with their friendships broken, and scattered over different establishments with strange companions and staff, having to adapt themselves to new administrations.
When I visited the Home Office, I raised this matter, and I was given the bland official comment that there was no evidence of harm. I do not dwell on this point too much, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will say that there is no evidence of good, either. No one has yet alleged that the boys benefited from it.
Furthermore, nearly 50 boys were sent home before their training was complete. To do this at a time when the schools were closed, with juvenile prospects at their worst, was not only inept but inhumane. Only six of the 50 boys thus released were reaching the stage when they were due for consideration for release. Here, we have evidence of what has happened, since after-care from the school has continued. There is evidence that about 12 of these boys have already been in trouble of one sort or another. One is on remand. Another has played truant. Some are in serious debt. One—I think this the most poignant of the lot—has been turned out of his home by his father.
Another difficulty has arisen. Boys of school age naturally find it unsettling to go to another school for a short time. But, more than that, some of these 50 boys—I have not the exact figure—were in need of, and were receiving, psychiatric treatment. They were summarily released without its completion and without arrangements being made for its continuance after release. If for nothing else, the Home Secretary stands condemned for the consequences to these boys alone.
What were the differences between the Home Secretary and the board of managers? They hinged on certain points. The first, I understand, was the matter of local authority representation on the board. I do not consider this an unreasonable request, but, bearing in mind the Home Secretary's rule 10, which demands that managers should live within reasonable distance of the school, the number available is somewhat circumscribed. The managers agreed to this suggestion, but asked only that it should be implemented gradually, without the demand for immediate retirement of the present members. I do not think that that was a serious bone of contention between the parties.
Second, the Home Secretary demanded the dismissal of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster—incidentally, the headmaster had offered to resign if the school were kept open—and the board of managers agreed to this, though reluctantly. I can understand their reluctance since I know these two gentlemen and the high esteem in which they are held.
The real stumbling block was the problem of Mr. Cook. And this is some problem. The Home Office was informed at the time of the decision to hold the inquiry, and again in June, that it was extremely difficult to hold the staff so long as Mr. Cook was still allowed to be an active member. The Home Office recognised this and sent down an official in June to try to persuade Mr. Cook to take extended leave; but, unfortunately, he refused to do so. When the board of managers negotiated with the Home Secretary, Mr. Cook was away on holiday. On returning after the Report was published, he immediately asked for six months' extended leave. This was gladly granted and willingly approved by the Home Office.
But, at the time of the interview with the Home Secretary, the board of managers had either to accept Mr. Cook's continued employment, in which case there would have been a near revolt among the staff, or give him two months' notice. They had no other powers. The Home Secretary's clumsy solution to this problem is to give everyone six months' notice, the managers, the head master, the deputy head master, Mr. Cook and all the staff.
At the end of this period, what will happen? The successor authority will face the same problem as the managers did, the same dilemma, whether to employ Mr. Cook, with the consequences which might ensue. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make it a condition of approval of the licence to the Surrey County Council that Mr. Cook should be employed? If not, where was the difference between him and the board of managers?
I am not advocating the employment of Mr. Cook in any way in the approved school service. The Report is not kind to him, and I do not propose to quote from it again. No one is shown in a worse light. It is not a good reference. He is shown as disloyal and jealous. A pseudonymous letter to a newspaper is no substitute for the elementary duty of a good citizen to report misdeeds to those in authority, to the managers, to his colleagues, to the Home Office, or even, if he did not trust his colleagues, to the chaplain who visits the school frequently. If he did not trust the managers, for his own peculiar reasons, could not Mr. Cook take the matter to the Home Office? If he did not trust the Home Office, is it not the duty of any citizen who claims to have evidence of brutality at least to go to the police?
I have the advantage over the Home Secretary in this matter of having had a conversation for an hour and a quarter with Mr. Cook. It is an interesting experience. To meet—I must say this, even if I lose the friendship of others of the staff at Court Lees—I found him a not unlikeable personality. But I judge him also to be ambitious, unsuccessful and very frustrated. In short, he is not in a job with the responsibilities which he considers equal to his intellectual capacity. He has had a varied and chequered career. It is obvious to me that he has a sort of superiority complex towards his colleagues and an apparent hatred directed towards, first, the board of managers, who have three times rejected him for offices of responsibility, and second, towards the children's department of the Home Office. Mr. Cook made an interesting comment to me. He said, "You will not get a report with wider terms of reference, as the children's department has too much to conceal". I make no comment on this.
Mr. Cook is also a bad disciplinarian. He issued a record number of yellow tickets or recommendations for punishment, most of which were disregarded. He is a fervent opponent of capital punishment, but the House will note with interest that when I saw the punishment book I noticed that two boys had been caned, quite rightly, on his recommendation less than a month before he wrote his letters to The Guardian.
All these qualities taken together add up to a difficult colleague and someone who is, in my view, quite unsuited to work in a community such as a school, particularly an approved school.
Having made Mr. Cook his casus belli with the managers, what will the Home Secretary do? Mr. Cook was promised that he would not be victimised if he came forward, but how will this be implemented? How will Mr. Cook receive his reward, his deserts? The answer is that the Home Secretary will drop him. He has served his purpose.
Now, what of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): As I understand it, the burden of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is now advancing to the House is that Mr. Cook is a highly unreliable character. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, in those circumstances, he chose to give currency to a slur against the children's department of the Home Office, advanced without any support by someone whom he regards as wholly unreliable?

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Naturally, it is a comment on Mr. Cook's unreliability. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have had the advantage of meeting Mr. Cook. I think that the House and the Home Secretary, who has not met Mr. Cook, should have a complete picture of the man in question.
I was about to deal with the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. Neither has been suspended, neither has been reprimanded, and technically neither has been punished, even though guilty of breaches of regulations. They have been given six months' notice, and the same penalty has been given to all, regardless of the degree of severity of the offences.
At one time it was understood that the Home Office had let it be known that there would be no further employment in the approved school service for either of these people. This was a rumour. I must repeat it. It is unfortunate that the Home Office attitude towards their future career has not been clarified at an earlier stage.
I have now seen the Home Secretary's letter, dated 7th November, to Sir Ronald Gould in answer to Sir Ronald's letter to him of 5th October. There is still some doubt as to the Home Secretary's intentions, and I hope that he will make it quite clear where the Home Office stands in this matter. His powers are limited to the approval of the appointment of a headmaster at the approved school. In the case of other staff he has no authority, although he can seek, and did seek, and has sought, to influence appointments, as he did when Mr. Haydon was being considered for the headmastership in January of this year.
I turn to the future of Mr. Draycon. He has had 32 years in the educational profession and 16 years in the approved schools service. He has no blemish on his character that I can trace. He is getting towards the age of retirement and any break in his career can substantially affect his pension prospects. As I understand from the Home Secretary's letter to Sir Ronald Gould, the General Secretary of the N.U.T., the right hon. Gentleman has no power to prevent Mr. Draycon's appointment in any school as deputy; yet he has told the Surrey County Council that he would think it inappropriate that Mr. Draycon should be appointed to any post at Court Lees, including the deputy headmastership. So much for the independence of local authorities. How long is the Home Secretary going to seek to influence other boards of management or local authorities under which Mr. Dray-con would seek an appointment?
I turn to the headmaster's prospects. What is his future? In another place the noble Lord, Lord Longford, said this:
I would hope that he would obtain a future in another approved school or some other part of the educational system …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, Wednesday, 25th October, 1967; Vol. 285, c. 1732.]
Will the Home Secretary confirm when he speaks that he shares these hopes?
There are, I am glad to say, signs in this letter that the Home Office is reconsidering what appeared to be its somewhat severe attitude towards the headmaster. In his letter to Sir Ronald dated 7th November, the right hon. Gentleman said this:
In the light of Mr. Gibben's Report I would not be prepared to approve the appointment of Mr. Haydon as headmaster of an approved school, but, after a suitable interval, it would be open to Mr. Haydon to put forward any fresh considerations which, in his view, might cause me or my successors to reconsider this decision.
What does the Home Secretary consider to be a "suitable interval"? What does he mean by "fresh considerations", for this is a curious and ambivalent punishment—a suspended, undefined sentence for a man who has not been found guilty of a crime.
Furthermore, in the headmaster's case this burkes all the issues. In his case there are allegations of excessive beatings. These are not just breaches of regulations. These are crimes. I hope that the Home Secretary is reminded of the very good speech by Baroness Serota in another place and this comment by her:
the proper place for justice is a court of law".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; Wednesday, 25th October, 1967; Vol. 285, c. 1695.]
and Lord Dilhorne's question whether this matter had been considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. There will not be a prosecution. Unless there is one, the headmaster is entitled to consider himself innocent of all criminal charges.
Further, there is a new threat hanging over the heads of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. I again quote from the Home Secretary's letter to Sir Ronald:
However, the question of Mr. Haydon's and Mr. Draycon's future employment, either in approved schools or in other types of school, is now dependent on the outcome of the consideration that the Secretary of State for Education and Science … is giving to their suitability for continued employment as teachers. As you know, the procedure for considering such questions includes an opportunity for the persons concerned to offer an explanation of the matter, and I understand that the Union's solicitors have already been in touch with the Department of Education and Science about this.
It is true that there is an opportunity for those concerned to offer pleas in mitigation and to give testimonials of

character, but this, too, is a private inquiry held by officials in the name of a Minister. This inquiry is not into their suitability for their present posts, but into their suitability for continued employment as teachers. It is the procedure for any teacher anywhere in the service who has, for example, been found guilty of an offence for which he has been tried in courts or who has been involved in some affair such as a notorious divorce case which, in the eyes of his employers, merits his dismissal. But the headmaster has not been tried in a court.
Further, it would be a tragedy of justice and the grossest injustice if this procedure alone takes place in complete defiance of the assurances given by counsel for the Home Office at the Gibbens inquiry. I quote from Mr. Solomon's speech. He said that these are
not allegations aimed against individual persons, although naturally it may well be that the result of your finding on one or other matters may be to attach credit discredit or blame to one or other persons, but, to put it in a word, no one is in the dock in this inquiry".
He said:
… it would be wrong to approach the matters as though they were quasi-criminal matters which had to be proved with the same strictness or strength of proof that is required in criminal cases in order to protect a man who is on trial. … I take it that if you in fact merely arrive at finding a particular allegation, which necessarily is a matter of finding fact involving one or other master, including a breach of the rules, nevertheless no disciplinary consequences would follow or could properly follow automatically upon your report.
Mr. Solomon added:
Therefore, an adverse finding against somebody may be involved, but if somebody were found to be under criticism or blamed in the report of a tribunal of this nature, and dismissed, or disciplinary action taken as a result of it, he would necessarily be the subject of a further inquiry or investigation. …
But none of these remarks can be held to apply to the inquiry by the Department of Education and Science, for that relates to their suitability as teachers, and that is not the tenure hearing which is allowed in the educational service into the actual loss of posts. In the Lords debate it was part of the Government's defence that this Department of Education and Science summons was the point to which Mr. Solomon was referring. I do not know whether it was a consequence of that, but in fact the summonses were received fairly soon after. But


this is the reason why the N.U.T. have demanded that a proper tribunal should be set up to consider the matter, to be held in public, concerning their fitness to hold their present posts.
Of course, all masters in approved schools have occupational hazards, if I may so put it, in the kind of accusation which can be made against them, which shows that they have need for greater security of tenure, rather than less, than those in other parts of the educational service. But as a result of what happened to these two men, a feeling of insecurity has spread throughout the staff of other approved schools, as any hon. Member with an approved school in his constituency will agree.
I will end my remarks about the headmaster and Mr. Draycon by saying that in my view it would be a tragedy if their abilities were lost to the approved school service to which they have given so much. In Mr. Haydon's case, it culminated in his appointment as headmaster last January at the age of 45 to the largest approved school and on the strong recommendation of the Home Office. He has an impressive record in the service, and the Home Secretary may have noticed the pleas submitted by many who know him, many of whom are friends of the Home Secretary.
I must make it clear to the House—I hardly believe that I need to say it—that none of us would condone brutality if it were committed. After getting to know the headmaster, I find it quite impossible to believe that he was guilty of such an offence, and I pay very warm tribute to the courage with which during these months he has faced the ruin of a promising career. The Home Secretary condemns him unseen, unheard. If he could not visit Court Lees with me, he might at least have accorded them an interview.
I said at the beginning that I accepted the Report for the purpose of this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well, I accept the Report in toto, and I will not reopen it. But I must express my doubt about the result. That is all I am trying to say, unless the Home Secretary is prepared to open a wider inquiry which, when I saw him, he said would serve no purpose.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: After meeting Mr. Haydon, the right hon. Gentleman did

not believe that he could have done that which the Report said that he had done. Does he accept the Report or does he not accept it?

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I said that I did not think that he was guilty of brutality, which is a criminal offence and for which he has not been brought to trial.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the findings of the Report?

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I must accept the findings of the Report. We cannot reopen the inquiry today. But I do not accept that he is a criminal, because if he were then I am certain that the Home Secretary would have brought him to book.
I come back to the Home Secretary's dismissal of the board of managers. He stated that the managers did not appreciate the implications of the Report. How could they? They had only one copy between 12, and 24 hours in which to consider the important issues involved. They were faced with an ultimatum. After two hours' discussion they gave way on all but the employment of Mr. Cook. To say that they did not appreciate the implications is a purely subjective judgment.
The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman's mind was already closed. It is worth reminding the House of the timetable. On 1st August Judge Cohen was refused an interview with the Home Secretary when he had been informed of his intention to withdraw the licence. How could the Home Secretary have known that the managers did not appreciate the implications unless he met them? The managers were dismissed and the school was dispersed, and the Home Secretary went away expecting to find on his return that everything was neatly tied up. If any questions had been asked we should have been accused of disturbing the newly reopened school.
On 11th August a letter was sent to Judge Cohen informing him that Court Lees would cease to be an approved school on 8th February and outlining the financial arrangements for the early takeover by the Surrey County Council. It was quick work—between 7th and 11th


August. The letter contains one interesting comment:
I should add that the Surrey County Council have said that they would be prepared to consider the appointment of some of the Managers to the new Management Committee for the schools.
It was done in the name of the Surrey County Council, but the words were the words of the Home Office.
It seems that the managers were not so bad after all. They were sacked on Sunday and back again in good repute on Thursday.
There was another little gem of irony. It was stated that for legal reasons the name of the school would have to be changed, and the proposal was mooted to name the school after the late chairman, Colonel Hale. That was a little ironical, because it was under the late chairman that all the incidents took place. In fairness to the Home Secretary, I think that he was away when the letter was sent, but I assume that he would not disown it.
The fact is that the Home Office miscalculated. The Home Secretary, having dismissed and affronted the managers, expected them to hand over, but he overlooked the legal position. The managers, with the full support of the staff, were determined that they would maintain their position until the matter had been fully ventilated in Parliament and until all possible representations had been made to the Home Secretary to induce him to change his mind and, in particular, to have a wider inquiry. The managers do not care about the affront to them. But they feel that an injustice has been done, that harm has been done to the boys of the school and that a slur has been cast on all the staff who were not implicated in the inquiry.
The Home Secretary is perturbed at the delay in the arrangements. I hope that he will not spend too much time in his speech in denigrating the managers. He can rest assured that there will be full co-operation with the Surrey County Council, in the interests of the staff. I will do all I can to help.
No harm has been done by the delay, except to the taxpayers in the fact that the building remains idle. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary has had to learn that he cannot bend the law to his will without protest and expect others to toe

the line and I hope that it has been a salutary lesson.
I have no wish to be unconstructive and I think we all face the fact that, in May, the right hon. Gentleman was in a dilemma. What should he have done? His supporters would say that he had no option. He had many options but chose the wrong one. I would assume that the first desire of a responsible Home Secretary would have been to keep the school open, whatever changes he might in due course have found it wise to make in the school or in its administration, in order to try to secure continuity of education for the boys and security for the staff.
The preliminary investigations took place at Court Lees on 6th, 7th and 9th May and on the basis of these reports the Home Secretary set up an inquiry. No one considers that he was wrong in that. He had to set up an inquiry. But no other action was taken and the school continued with the shadow of this inquiry hanging over it throughout the hearing until August. But in my view this action was inadequate and was, in fact, the wrong action.
After the prima facie evidence was given to him, the right hon. Gentleman should have asked the board of managers to suspend the headmaster and the deputy headmaster pending an inquiry. They could then have appointed an acting headmaster from outside the school and a temporary deputy headmaster either from within the school or without it. They could then have arranged for supporting staff from other approved schools to be moved in, as has been done in other cases. This is a difficult situation but it is the same that would have arisen if the managers had dismissed the headmaster and the deputy headmaster as requested.
The right hon. Gentleman should also, as he did in June, have offered Mr. Cook six months' extended leave. If this was refused, he would have been justified and wise in suspending Mr. Cook. But the school would have been able to carry on and would have remained in being whatever report the inquiry produced.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that this debate finishes at 7 o'clock and that he has now taken almost 55 minutes? If the Home Secretary takes that long—and


presumably we shall have winding-up speeches from both sides—this means that virtually no back benchers will have an opportunity to speak, and that is deplorable.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I apologise to my hon. Friend but he knows that, for the last three or four months, I have been living with this problem and I think it is right that I should not end my speech without at least saying what I think the Home Secretary should have done. I apologise if I have taken too long. I know my hon. Friend's feelings on the matter, which I share.
On receipt of the Report, the Home Secretary should have considered disciplinary action. Above all, before punishing those who might have been found guilty of disciplinary offences or of crimes, he could then have given them a chance to speak for themselves against the indictment and allowed evidence of character and pleas in mitigation. Again, in May, the Home Secretary should have widened the terms of reference to include conduct and management since 1963, and in the light of the Report could have made up his mind whether to close the school or not.
Why did the Home Office refuse an inquiry with wider terms of reference, as requested in May? I do not know. I made a similar request in August and in September, when I saw the right hon. Gentleman himself. My object was to get the school reopened. The right hon. Gentleman refused. He said he could not see what purpose it would serve.
Why did the Home Secretary do this? This is a precipitate and ill-considered closure which has deprived the community of the much needed services of this school. It has scattered the pupils, jeopardised the employment of staff and, most heinous of all, has wrecked the careers and condemned two men, unseen and unheard.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman do it? I think that he was understandably horrified by the photographs shown to him. But he should not act on a quick emotional reaction without calculating all the consequences. I think that he was badly advised. I think that he was in a hurry. I think also—and I have respect and liking for the right hon. Gen-

tleman—that he was more concerned with a theatrical gesture and with the preservation of his own image as a liberal-minded Home Secretary than he was with doing justice to those he has condemned or with the interests of those staff and those pupils for whom he has responsibility
It is, then, for his melodramatic and maladroit action in closing the school regardless of the consequences that we condemn him.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) was good enough to refer to the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add
'believing that the matter of the rights of teachers at Court Lees School was fully and satisfactorily ventilated in another place, is of the opinion that any further discussion can only be damaging to the best interests of all those concerned with approved schools'.
For the sake of the record, will you make it clear that the Amendment has not been selected for discussion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment has not been selected. Mr. Paget.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had two Questions down for Oral Answer on subjects highly germane to this debate, one to the Home Secretary and one to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Both Answers should have been available in the Lobby at 3.30 p.m. It is now nearly 5.30 p.m. and they have not reached me. Can you help me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made the point and no doubt those responsible for seeing that Written Answers to Questions are supplied to hon. Members in the Lobby will have taken note.

Mr. Iremonger: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make it clear that these Questions were not for Written Answer but for Oral Answer and, therefore, due today and not at the Ministers' convenience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The normal practice of the House is that Questions down for Oral Answer and not reached by 3.30 p.m. receive a Written Answer as soon as convenient after that time. I am sure that the Ministers concerned will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be for the convenience of the House in having an intelligent debate if we were to hear the Home Secretary now so that we could discuss the issue in the light of both sides of the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot call the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary if he does not rise. Mr. Paget.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: There was one passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) which struck me as quite astounding. On the one hand, he says that he accepts the Gibbens Report and on the other he says that he does not think that Mr. Haydon was guilty of brutality. That seems to me to involve an odd definition of brutality.
But I shall go straight away on to the question which seems to be germane. Nobody is in the dock. Some may be very fortunate not to be there but they are not in the dock. The question which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has to decide is quite simply, "On the facts as I know them, can I approve of a school under the control of men who behave as these men have said they behaved and managed by governors who condone, and almost go as far as approve, this behaviour?"
My right hon. Friend says that he cannot approve of such an institution. That is the issue here and that is all this is about. It is asked: why are not these men prosecuted if they are guilty of a criminal offence? It is a general custom that when one sets up an inquiry at which one asks people to give evidence, one does not then bring prosecutions in which that evidence can be used against them. It seems that in this instance it is a very fortunate custom for two, at least, of the men involved here and one which they would be unwise to question.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. St. John-Stevas rose—

Mr. Paget: I am sorry. We have had 60 minutes spent by the Front Bench and I am going to state my case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Surely the issue in this Report and in this debate is not whether the Home Secretary approves of the school or the Report approves of the school. The issue surely is whether the conduct of the headmaster and his deputy was approved. One could quite easily disapprove very strongly of that, as does the Report—and I very strongly disapprove of it myself—but at the same time think it unnecessary to approve or disapprove of the school.

Mr. Paget: This is an approved school—not approved masters. What my right hon. Friend was unable to do was to approve of a school conducted by such masters or administered by such governors. When we have looked a little further into this I will be a little astonished if I find that people could approve of such an institution.
Let us see what happened here. What were the irregularities which were confessed in this inquiry and found by Mr. Gibbens? Firstly, there is the question of the canes. The Home Office made a free issue of canes. They are canes which have a safety factor built into them. They break if too much force is used. They were not good enough for this institution of which it is said my right hon. Friend should approve. Canes were obtained which would stand the full strength of Mr. Haydon, a quarter finalist at Wimbledon whose forehand drive used to be famous.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: Mrs. Freda Corbet (Peckham) rose—

Mr. Paget: No, I will not give way. They went out and bought extra-weight canes.

Mrs. Corbet: May I remind my hon. and learned Friend that the headmaster previous to Mr. Haydon was the one who did not find the canes strong enough, and that that was three years before?

Mr. Paget: Well, the master before Mr. Haydon and then Mr. Havdon used these canes, and they are sufficient for


his purpose—with his forehand drive. The hon. Lady is not even right about that, because the cane actually used by Mr. Haydon was one that he brought with him. If one looks at the evidence it will be found to be so.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to read to the House the whole of paragraph 39 of the Report and say whether what he has been saying is even a creditable summary of it?

Mr. Paget: Hon. Members have the Report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]— In due course. We have had 60 minutes of the Opposition Front Bench, and I do not want to take up more time. This is one of the charges which was found—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, these excessive canings. The next case which was made out and charged was that at this school, beating was the first punishment, not the last. Of that these men are convicted, and in defiance of the first rule here which is to the effect that every effort shall be made to enforce discipline without resort to corporal punishment.
Thirdly, one of these gentlemen, Mr. Draycon, beat boys in pyjamas, which again was contrary to the rules. Mr. Haydon made it a practice—this is the tennis player—on a number of occasions, to pull out their shirt tails. This was, as he says, in order to make the beating more severe. He goes on to say at one point—this is from the debate in another place—that another reason why he pulled the tails out was to add drama to what he was doing and to make it more memorable. There was a certain drama on these occasions. According to him there was nothing in the least surprising, not something he would remember, if, during these beatings, boys threw themselves down, had to be picked up and held, and were beaten whilst they had their heads between another master's legs who held them. Beatings were not recorded in the book.
The most serious charge of all is that of excessive severity. In the cases of the children referred to as No. 13 and No. 3 photographs were not necessary. In the case of four of them photographs were produced. This is four instances. I do not know if anyone throws any doubt

upon these photographs, certainly according to the Report no one questioned their validity or reliability at the trial.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose—

Mr. Paget: I will not give way any more. In another place some question was raised about this. Let us see what the evidence was about these photographs. The boys said that they were photographed. Mr. Cook said that he photographed them. The film was sent, undeveloped, to The Guardian. The Guardian developed it and from there it went to the pathologists. If those were not the photographs Mr. Cook said they were, what were they, and how could they come to him?
They were undeveloped when he sent them along. I do not know Dr. Paul, I do know Keith Simpson and I do know Donald Teare. They are men of great experience. They are forensic experts and are highly accustomed to dealing with photographs. They had no doubt at all about these photographs. Both agreed that if they had found a child in the state shown on two of these photographs they would immediately have sent for the police.
One of them, Simpson, said he would equally have done so in a third case. Dr. Teare was not certain of this. Added to that, there is the evidence of the schoolmasters themselves, that there was nothing unusual about the beatings which had preceded the taking of these photographs, and that they were not of any exceptional severity. This was the kind of conduct which two experienced Home Office pathologists would have sent straight to the police. These were the photographs of the results of what the masters described as perfectly normal beatings.
It is often said in this House that whatever we are discussing somebody can bring a personal experience to it. I am going to venture to do so, and this may be one reason why I feel so involved in this debate. I have often been held as being less than enthusiastic on the side of immature self-government. I think that in some degree this is because I experienced some of it—I was at a public school.
At one period discipline was conducted by the prefects. One of them did not


like me, or found it fun,—I do not know what it was—and I was continually flogged for about five months, until severe ulceration set in and the doctor stopped it. I think that one has to have a little of that kind of experience to discover what this sort of thing is like for the person who receives it.
The worst part was not primarily the pain, nor even the going in, but the coming out of the room and facing the little boys, my contemporaries, who had been counting the strokes, and were there as a pack to finish off a wounded member. One felt like a wounded dog doing what it could to conceal the hurt and escape back into the pack. The next night I would be there as one of the pack counting the strokes being received by others, and in my heart feeling bitterly ashamed of being there, but too frightened to do anything else. The worst part was the need to conceal, to hide away one's hurt. Inside I curled up like a hedgehog, throwing out defensive spikes of pretence and show-off, anything to conceal my real and over-vulnerable feelings. It took me about 20 years to uncurl that hedgehog so that I could begin again to share feelings which I had found it so desperately necessary to conceal. In fact, it was not until 20 years after, when I came to this House, that I began really to be able to enjoy the kind of friendship which involves sharing one's emotions. I say this because I wish to make it clear that it was no light and transitory injury which was being done to these boys.
One of these masters pointed to a boy and said, "Stand up." The school was in assembly, "I want everyone to know that you are a coward, that you squirmed and whimpered when you were punished." When asked about it the master said "I do not use the club" but he accepted squirm and whimper. What kind of scar tissue will grow on that injury? How long will it last? When I received my treatment, I started whole. These children started as casualties in need of care and protection. I do not know whether they needed it before they got there, but they certainly did on arrival.
Let us consider the question of absconding. These boys scamper home to Mum. This is the only love which many of them have. These are disturbed children, and Mum is their haven. Everybody knows

where they are going, and the police are there to meet them, or Mum has been talked to and she has to send for the police. There is a sense of awful betrayal when they find that the only available haven has been closed, and a policeman takes them back to school. They arrive there at midnight, or perhaps two o'clock in the morning, and they are thrashed, either immediately, or, as they are sometimes filthy, they are given a wash before being thrashed. In heaven's name, what can thrashing a child in these circumstances achieve? These may be kind men, but is anyone going to entrust children to this monumental stupidity?
Another thing for which these children were being thrashed was masturbation—in this day and age.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: This statement was made in the Lords, and was contradicted. No boy was beaten for masturbating.

Mr. Paget: Let us call it sex play. That is the reason given.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not do an injustice to these people, and the Home Secretary knows that he is doing it. The beatings for sex play, as the hon. and learned Gentleman calls it, were beatings for bullying small boys to submit to masturbating big boys.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: There is no record of that in the punishment book. There is record that there were beatings for mutual masturbation during the period leading up to the inquiry. There was no suggestion in the punishment book that this was for bullying.

Mr. Paget: That is only one instance of beatings for sex play, there were many.
I am not saying that in all circumstances I am opposed to corporal punishment. I regard it as a confession of defeat, either by a parent or by a schoolmaster, but at some point in a rebellion, in bullying, or in defiance, it may be necessary to demonstrate that one is stronger than the person whom one has to rule.
That is all that it amounts to, but it should not be administered for the sort of purpose to which I have been referring, and these are the people whom the Home Secretary is asked to approve for the


management of boys. He is asked to approve of people who are capable of such stupidity. Almost the most shocking thing is the subsequent offer to run the school without corporal punishment, and a confident expression that it can be done. If they did not think it was necessary, why did they do it?
I turn now to Judge Cohen and his colleagues, the governors. I could perhaps forgive their negligence in not knowing what was going on at this school, but it was not a question of having to wait for a report. They had the opportunity to be at the hearing to find out what had happened there.
What was their reaction when these terrible things came to light? They wanted to wreak vengeance on Mr. Cook who showed them up. That is all that they were concerned with. They said that they must keep the headmaster, because he is a good chap, but they must get rid of the man who showed him up. If Mr. Cook was so bad, why was he employed for so long? It was only when he showed them up that they discovered he was bad. It was not a question that they would not keep Mr. Cook. Here were people who were running this school reacting with no seriousness to what had come out in the evidence, and they did not have to wait for Mr. Gibbens to tell them the result of the evidence. They had heard it. They were quite unperturbed by the evidence of what had been done. All that they wanted was to get rid of Mr. Cook. They were not much concerned about anybody else. It was quite enough to know that these men were unfit to be managers.
I have not had the advantage of meeting Mr. Cook. I do not know what his motives were. I do not know what sort of temperament he has. I do not know whether he is a suitable schoolmaster, but at one point in his life he did a good thing. He opened this sewer. He has let this out. He has stopped great cruelty, and I do not kid myself that this is the only approved school in which it has happened. He has brought relief not only in this school but elsewhere.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been attacked. I hope that he will not feel it presumptuous of me to say so, but he has shown great courage.

He has had to face the establishment in the shape of the formidable and respected figures who made up the board of governors and who form other boards all over the country. He had to face his own Department's commitment to these people. It cannot have been easy to do it, and it was a brave thing to do. In the last few years, we have seen far too many people going to the Dispatch Box as captives of the establishment, to deny the principles they once professed. Here we have a Minister who has had the guts to face up to that situation and, although I have of late sometimes been reluctant lobby fodder, I shall vote joyously tonight.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is this not an example of why we ought to have a speech from the Home Secretary during the course of the debate, so that we have on record the official reply from the Treasury Bench on the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I rise to make a short but pointed speech. I do not intend to discuss corporal punishment or the behaviour of Mr. Haydon, Mr. Draycon or even of Mr. Cook. I want to discuss the principles behind this unfortunate story.
I consider that the precipitate closure of the school was unnecessary and unjust. The effect on the approved school service has been most disruptive and, to start with, it has affected seriously the morale of the service.
A blanket judgment was made on the whole staff, when the majority had nothing to do with the incidents which were the subject of the Gibbens Inquiry. Their livelihoods and their professional integrity were put in jeopardy arbitrarily by this blanket judgment. It was unfair and quite contrary to the rules of natural justice. It has left the sour taste of suspicion and mistrust, and has resulted in a complete loss of faith in the various parts of the approved school service.
What lies behind the cases of the headmaster and the deputy head? It involves the vital principle of tenure and security


of employment. That is what is at stake in the whole of this incident, and not only in approved schools but, as I hope to show, possibly in the maintained side of our education system.
In effect, the headmaster and the deputy head have been dismissed by the Home Office.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jennings: I said that I was not debating the merits of the case. It is the manner in which the action was taken that counts, and I am not entering into a discussion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) apparently does not agree. If hon. Members opposite came to know of people in industry who had been treated as arbitrarily as these two men have been, we should see unofficial strikes, demonstrations and the rest of it.
I am pleading for the system not to be operated in the way that it has been. Virtually, the Home Secretary has dismissed these two men. In his letter to Sir Ronald Gould, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers, he says that he would not be prepared to approve the appointment of Mr. Haydon as headmaster of an approved school.
However, let us keep to basic principles. He goes a little further by saying that they may apply for an interview with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. How kind and charitable of him. It is quite in keeping with his liberal outlook on these matters. He says that, if the Secretary of State grants them an interview, they can put their case to show that they are fit persons to be ordinary teachers.
That is as far as the right hon. Gentleman has gone, but he has closed the door to these two men to any appointment in a senior capacity in the work in which they have been trained for years. He has closed it without the tenure hearing which is the normal established practice for the whole teaching profession.
These men are teachers. They are in a specialist part of the teaching service. The whole consensus of opinion and practice in the teaching service is that, if a man or woman is in danger of being dismissed, he or she is entitled to a tenure hearing. When the right hon. Gentleman

replies to the debate, I invite him to tell the House whether the Inquiry was in the nature of a tenure hearing. It is clear that it was not. It did not fulfil any of the conditions of a tenure hearing. It was held in private, which put these two men at a great disadvantage. Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon had no prior knowledge of the allegations made against them. Their legal advisers were not shown copies of the boys' complaints prior to the hearing, so that they could take instructions upon them. They were not permitted to be present when the boys gave evidence, as would be the case in a criminal trial or a tenure hearing. The Inquiry was not able to consider evidence relating to the general work of the school or to the professional integrity and records of the two men. The allegations were considered in complete isolation from their general backgrounds and careers.
It was not a tenure hearing and, in the interests of common justice, these men are entitled now to a full tenure hearing, whatever else they are given.
The Home Secretary was requested—[Interruption.] The Minister of State for Education and Science shakes her head—

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No. I was not shaking my head.

Mr. Jennings: I am sorry; I thought that the right hon. Lady was disagreeing with me. As a teacher, I am sure she will agree with what I say about a tenure hearing.
The right hon. Gentleman was requested to set up a Home Office inquiry to consider the future of these two men as employees in the approved school service. The right hon. Gentleman rejected this and told them that they could have an interview with the Secretary of State for Education and Science instead. However, such an interview is not a tenure hearing. On the wording of the right hon. Gentleman's letter, they will still be debarred from senior posts in approved schools purely on the basis of the Gibbens Report, without there being a full consideration of their case by a tenure hearing.
This situation is completely unsatisfactory when compared with the position of


their colleagues in maintained schools. If this happened in a maintained school, there would be trouble throughout the country—

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: It would not happen.

Mr. Jennings: I am glad that the Home Secretary has returned, because I want to say to him that the very least that he can do in the interests of common justice—he has the full power—is to grant each of these men a separate personal interview. If he will not accept my request for a full tenure inquiry, then, in the interests of fair play between man and man—not between himself as a Minister with full powers and these poor individuals ground under the heel of the Home Office—let him, as a man, tell them that they can come to see him and put their case fairly.
Unless justice is seen to be done, the Home Secretary's arbitrary action gives credence to the suspicion that any Minister engaged in any aspect of education, because the right hon. Gentleman has pushed the door open, will be able to dismiss any teacher without a tenure inquiry. This is the creation of a dangerous precedent and could lead in future to a dangerous situation.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Ben Whitaker: One listened in vain during the lengthy and vigorous pleas made on behalf of the teachers at Court Lees by hon. Members opposite for any recognition whatsoever of the rights of Mr. Cook. There is no dispute in the House that these teachers in Court Lees have their rights. Many, I am sure, are excellent teachers and will be re-employed when the school reopens, but it is worth remembering that not one of them had the courage to speak out about the state of affairs which undoubtedly existed in the school. It is also worth remembering that the only teacher who had the guts to report what an independent inquiry has shown to be a deplorable situation at this school was Mr. Cook, who has been attacked from the other side.
It may well be said—and I would not dissent—that Mr. Cook was wrong to send his evidence initially anonymously to a national newspaper, but that lack of confidence in the managers' impartiality

has been amply justified and his fear of being victimised for speaking the truth has been fully borne out by the actions of those managers subsequently in their attitude to the Home Secretary.
Mr. Cook has since been a victim of a sustained campaign of vilification. At least one national newspaper has now offered him an apology and damages for having printed allegations by those who were attacking him. The question has been asked—it was not answered by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)—why did these managers continue to employ Mr. Cook, for whom they are now unable to find a good word to speak, for a great number of years at this school? The step which the Home Secretary had to take was a blunt one, but the lamentable attitude of the managers left him no alternative.
A report by an independent Queen's Counsel leaned over backwards to be fair to the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. The Times Educational Supplement said that the Report was almost excessively fair. Mr. Gibbens accepted no allegation which was not corroborated by additional evidence, yet one felt that the state of affairs which he found could have resulted, with responsible managers, only in the instant dismissal of the headmaster and deputy headmaster, whose reliability and evidence on oath the Report necessarily rejected.
In particular, the coloured photographs—which the headmaster's expert witnesses, to whom they were shown before the Inquiry and who stated that they could not challenge them because they accepted that they were both authentic and unaltered—disclosed, according to two of the most distinguished expert medical witnesses in the country, men who are experienced in seeing daily numbers of injuries when they appear in the courts for the police, and who are quoted in paragraph 57 of the Report, what amounted to prima facie evidence of criminal offences having been committed. It has been said in the House of Lords, and I think that all hon. Members must agree, that the headmaster and the deputy are very fortunate men not at present to be prosecuted. The public concern which I have heard expressed over this case relates only to the fact that these two men have not so far been prosecuted, whereas the headmaster of Colderton College was.
When the Report reached the managers, they read it in what one can only describe as a "looking glass" fashion. Instead of instantly dismissing those who had been found by the Report to be seriously culpable, they sought, when they saw the Home Office, to retain them and obstinately insisted on trying to dismiss Mr. Cook, whose allegations the Report had found to be largely substantiated.
If the Home Secretary had acceded to the managers' extraordinary attitude, only three results could have followed—first, that a very grave injustice would have been done; second, that no other approved school teacher would have dared to make any allegation, however justified, again because of the fear that he would be victimised as a result; third, that the Home Secretary would have deserved censure, which I would have had great difficulty in not supporting.
My right hon. Friend's action was indeed drastic, but the blame for this belongs solely to the managers whose attitude left him no alternative, because only they possessed the power to dismiss any of the staff. If any damage has subsequently flowed to the school or the boys, the responsibility can lie only at the door of the managers. It is their responsibility too for having prolonged over the past few months the uncertainty for the boys and the staff at this school and it is their responsibility too for not allowing the Home Office to reopen the school more quickly; a school on which a vast sum of public money has been spent.
In all their managers' sustained campaign of innuendo and self-justification, one has listened in vain for a single word of apology or regret for their own responsibility for the state of affairs at this school, for they cannot escape one of two alternatives. Either these men knew that the rules were being habitually violated and connived at the fact—which I cannot believe—or they were so out of touch with what was going on that they were not doing their job as managers.
This responsibility is all the more serious at an approved school, where the managers are to some extent in loco parentis, because, unlike a private school, from which parents can remove their children if they are subjected to cruelty, at an approved school they cannot do so. Therefore, any impartial person consider-

ing the attitude of the managers can only have felt that, if they were to act responsibly, they would have resigned immediately the Report appeared.
One further matter arises from the Gibbens Report which must call for comment. Many people are disturbed by the fact that Mr. Garlick, the previous deputy headmaster at Court Lees, who, in paragraph 38 of the Gibbens Report, was found to have broken the rules by ordering the unlawful canes from one Mr. Wildman and who Mr. Gibbens could not accept as telling the truth in his evidence, is now the warden of the Royal Philanthropic Society School at Redhill. This is not the place to try any man, but I hope that the authorities will consider whether such a man is fit for such a position as he still occupies.
I would now like to leave this sorry and sad tale, which we all hope will tonight be closed once and for all. In closing, I would ask what lessons can we learn for future benefit? I suggest that there are four. First, I hope that the Home Office will ask for and receive early Parliamentary time to reform the whole system of young offenders in this country, in which we have been waiting for so long for some radical reforms to be made. This will be of help to all approved school staff to whose difficult and expert work I am sure that every hon. Member pays tribute tonight. I suggest that in this reform the Home Office needs much closer control over approved schools, or whatever system takes their place, because the present system leaves no alternative to the drastic and blunt step which my right hon. Friend had to take in closing the school if the managers, as in this case, wish totally to misread plain black and white facts. I suggest that the present system of amateur managers must be re-examined, despite the sincerity and good intentions of many of them.
The second lesson, I suggest, is that the traditional method of school inspection in this country needs rapid and drastic revision. As at Colderton College earlier this year, it failed, not in my right hon. Friend's Department but in the Department of the Minister of Education and Science, to detect a disturbing state of affairs which had existed over several years, and we in this country have therefore no way of knowing how exceptional are Court Lees and Colverton. My own


time in the Army at both ends of inspections give me no confidence in the veracity of any inspection where there is any forewarning, and I therefore hope that in future there will be snap inspections without forewarning and that the inspectors will gently and thoroughly talk to the children at these schools, out of the presence and hearing of the staff, to find out what is really going on.
My third suggestion is that, whether we like it or not, in several sectors of life in this country, as Mrs. Robb—my constituency—also found among hospital staff in a minority of mental hospitals, there is a reluctance to use the official machinery for making complaints against one's superiors. Whether or not this is justified, one may reflect that the action of the managers in Court Lees school has given this a further tenure of belief in this country. It may be that some may feel that only an independent Ombudsman type of investigation will fully protect people in junior posts in staffs who wish to make allegations against their superiors.

Sir Richard Glyn: This is very important. The evidence makes it clear that on no occasion did Mr. Cook attempt to make any complaints through what used to be called the usual channels—to the headmaster, to the inspectors, to the managers, to the chaplain, to the doctor and, of course, he is blamed in the Report for not having done so.

Mr. Whitaker: I agree, but if the hon. Member had heard the earlier part of my speech he would know that. I was suggesting that he was justified by the subsequent actions of those managers. The headmaster to whom he should have complained was the very man against whom a criminal offence has now been found.

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Member accept the Report? Mr. Cook's conduct in the very respect to which my hon. Friend has referred was described in paragraph 30 of the Report as inexcusable. Does the hon. Member accept the Report or reject it?

Mr. Whitaker: I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was listening, but I said that I did not de-

fend Mr. Cook's attitude in taking the matter initially to The Guardian. But may I suggest that the condemnations in the Report of Mr. Cook, such as they are—and I have read them carefully—are nothing compared with the criminal evidence which has been found against the two gentlemen whom the right hon. Member for Reigate sought to exonerate.
There is a fourth lesson which I believe we may learn from this sorry episode. It is that the Government should lose no further time in ending corporal punishment in all schools in this country. I very much respect my right hon. Friend's determination as a result of this case to phase it out as quickly as possible. This is one of the recommendations of the Plowden Report which it would cost no money whatever to implement. Indeed it might be said that it would save a little. I believe that every other country in Europe, if not in the world, has already done this. It is one of the unenviable distinctions which Britain would be better without, because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, corporal punishment continues a chain reaction of brutality for a new generation. The staff at Court Lees admitted that it was not necessary when they offered to the Home Office to dispense with it. Many schools in the country have successfully dispensed with it. Not until it is no longer available will adequate thought be given to alternative methods of controlling difficult children.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will show the same civilised courage as the Home Secretary has shown in ending corporal punishment in approved schools. It can only be described as scandalous that it is still used in this country for mentally handicapped and maladjusted children. I suggest that the actions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deserve the earnest congratulations of the House instead of this attempted vote of censure.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: May I begin with one comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker). It has been taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). It is wrong to suggest that Mr. Cook has been subjected to an unfair campaign


of calumny by all concerned. If one reads and accepts the Gibbens Report, it is impossible to dress Mr. Cook out in a white sheet.
The nub of the debate, at least to me, though not necessarily to everyone else, is whether justice has been done to the headmaster and certain members of the staff by the Home Office. It is not difficult to lose sight of that point in the welter of evidence on other matters. What has happened since to the former pupils since the school was closed, for example, is important, but in my view it is not the nub of the matter. What troubles me, and I think troubles most people who have been concerned with this case, is this. Had this headmaster committed any criminal act—and with respect to what was said by the hon. Member for Hampstead, we must presume, in the light of what has happened, that he has not—he would have been accorded better justice than he has received at the hands of the Home Secretary.
What has been done, on any pretext, is, I believe alien to the principles of justice in which most of us firmly believe. The Home Secretary committed a precipitate action which denied justice to the headmaster and certain members of the staff in this case. That is the case against the Home Secretary and why some of us feel that there is need for a further inquiry into the matter. This is what has caused so much disquiet among several bodies who are not directly connected with approved schools, but who, nevertheless, have expressed it hardly less strongly than have my hon. Friends in the course of the debate.
I am not arguing against the Commissioner's findings nor the events leading to the appointment, curious though they were. I am quite prepared to assume—though not everyone will—that every word of the Gibbens Report is correct and justified, indeed that all Mr. Cook's testimony is to be accepted as justified. But in my view there still remains a great deal to which we need an answer.
The first question which arises in my mind concerns the timetable. The allegations made by Mr. Cook first appeared in early March. The Home Secretary reacted instantly and made a speech promising an investigation. The

Gibbens inquiry was in fact set on foot on 16th May. When the Report reached the Home Office we do not know, but it was signed by Mr. Gibbens on 27th July. On 6th August, a Sunday, the managers met. Why Sunday? It is not the best possible day for assembling a company of managers.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In fairness to the Home Secretary, Sunday was at the wish of the managers. Otherwise, it would have been Monday.

Mr. Deedes: Then I accept that apparently it was at the wish of eight out of 13 managers, because only eight were able to attend.
A number of versions of this matter have appeared, and I cannot accept that the version which appeared on behalf of Judge Cohen and his colleagues in a letter to The Times a week or two back was in any way untruthful. While there is conflicting evidence from the two sides, I am persuaded that a considerable area of misunderstanding was left after the meeting between the Home Secretary and managers. And yet the following day the Home Secretary ordered the school closed, and the Report was published that same day. I hope that the Home Secretary will give some explanation for this very precipitate programme. What was the urgency? Why could not a week have been given to discussions and negotiations before, if necessary, the Report was published?
Unquestionably—and anyone who argues to the contrary is doing no service whatever—serious mistakes were made at this school. For this the managers must accept a degree of responsibility. Does not the Home Office also carry some responsibility in the matter? To what extent is the Home Office willing to admit a degree of blame for what occurred? On the answer rests a point which causes me considerable disquiet; how far Mr. Haydon and his staff are being made the scapegoat for a serious failure on the part of the Home Office, to which I will come.
When the Home Secretary saw representatives of the National Union of Teachers on 11th September he rightly stressed his special relationship to approved schools. He was reported as having said:
In the case of Approved Schools, the Home Office was more accountable for the conditions … there was no Local Authority to act


as a cushion between the schools and the Home Secretary.
That was quite right, but how was the stewardship fulfilled? I hope that hon. Members have read paragraph 13 of the Report, which concludes, referring to full Home Office inspections:
… although many such full inspections have been made, the pressure of work on the Inspectorate has caused the programme to be curtailed and at present such inspections are undertaken only when circumstances make it necessary or desirable. Court Lees School, which is an intermediate school, last received a full inspection in 1963 and has since received annual inspections and regular visits.
It is a not unimportant coincidence that another important event occurred in 1963. One of the main charges against Mr. Haydon is the use of a cane—not authorised by the Home Secretary—habitually for corporal punishment. This began in 1963 and paragraph 38 of the Report refers specifically to how it came about. It should be noted that this was the cane inherited by Mr. Haydon when he succeeded this position on 1st January of this year. He did not spot the error. Why did the Home Office inspection not spot it—in four years? Paragraph 40 points out:
It may be that the use of a cane larger than the type approved by the Secretary of State contributed to causing the injuries …
If the injuries inflicted on a boy were associated with the weight of the cane used, I do not believe that the Home Office can absolve itself from all blame, let alone the blame for certain other irregularities which might not have occurred if there had been fuller inspections.
It is vain and rather odious for the Home Office to give the impression—as was given in an earlier debate—that Mr. Cook and Mr. Gibbens between them had uncovered a scandalous state of affairs—so scandalous and so at variance with Home Office standards that there was no course open to the Home Secretary but to close this sink of iniquity. The situation was not helped when the Home Secretary said that he proposed to "phase out"—whatever that phrase means—the cane in these establishments.
Mr. Haydon's fault was not that he used a cane illicitly—its use was still part of

Home Office standards, however much one may regret it; I am not sure that I do not myself—but that it was used excessively. It is not a matter of principle but of degree and, because of this, I insist the Home Office must carry a fair measure of blame for what went on. That is why I find this injustice so disturbing.
One cannot escape the feeling that the first reaction of the Home Office was that apportionment of blame was something which did not bear the investigation of a wider inquiry. A fuller inquiry in public could hardly have enhanced the position of the Home Office.
In this, as in many spheres, the responsibility which falls on the Home Secretary is a cruelly exacting one, sometimes unfairly so. He has a bomb on his desk in almost every political issue which may arise, and sometimes it explodes to his own detriment. Yet the right hon. Gentleman's ultimate responsibility is something which should not be fobbed off too freely on to other people in circumstances such as these. Of course, the Home Secretary must admonish and, if necessary, punish those who exceed authority on his behalf, but a balance must be struck between doing that and making a public example of those who share these difficult responsibilities with him.
That is why I sharply question the wisdom of failing to admit—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will—that, in some regards, the Home Office has contributed to this chapter of misfortune. That reflection leads me to think that Mr. Haydon has received less than justice—justice which, if this had been meted out to a criminal found guilty of a serious offence, would have provoked indignation.
What is to be the effect of all this on other servants of the Crown in like positions of responsibility? I believe that it must be grievous, as some expressions from unexpected quarters have indicated. Because of the harm it will do to those exercising authority on his behalf, I condemn the Home Secretary's conduct.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I rise with an apology to hon. Members who wanted to continue the debate. The


Home Secretary indicated to me that he wanted fully 40 minutes for his reply, and I am sure that no hon. Member would grudge him every minute he requires. I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the matter so much careful attention and, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), while I would have preferred to have heard the right hon. Gentleman's account of the facts before I presented my comments on the matter, it is for a Minister to select the time at which he chooses to reply to a debate of this kind.
This is obviously a much more difficult case than many of the participants had thought. I shall criticise the Home Secretary later, but I recognise—and some hon. Members on both sides have not—that in handling this matter he was handling an extremely difficult case.
The Home Secretary and I have been facing each other across the Dispatch Box for nearly two years. He will probably agree with me that during that time our relations have, for persons placed in that uncomfortable position, been unusually amicable. I value that relationship and I do not want to lose it now. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has gradually acquired, perhaps against his better judgment, a little regard for me, and I have always had a great regard for him. The business of the House gains enormously by the relationship between two protagonists remaining on this sort of footing. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of malice or insincerity when I criticise what he has done in this case. The last thing I would wish to do is to in any way question his sincerity or his human instincts in the matter.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I do not regard this as a question which arises about brutality. All hon. Members who have anything like decent instincts reprobate brutality of all kinds with deep feeling. These boys are our charge. They are in our care. The Home Secretary is only our executive officer. We cannot have them being knocked about by anybody. Whether we approve of corporal punishment or whether we do not so approve, the fact remains that in any decent system punishment must be subject to regulations, and the regulations must be observed. Any-

thing like a repeated breach of the regulations is an extremely serious thing.
But the meanest criminal in this country—and these two persons were not that—is entitled to a free trial. The fundamental question in giving anybody a fair trial is whether one has listened to both sides of the case. The nub of my criticism of the Home Secretary is that these people have never had a fair trial and that he failed to listen adequately to both sides of the case.
The Home Secretary was, of course, right—whatever one may think of Mr. Cook—to institute an inquiry. I agree with my right hon. Friend that Mr. Cook cannot be dressed up as a knight in shining armour. The fact is that he was an unsuccessful applicant for the job of headmaster—the job of the man he tried to ruin. The Report expressly states both that his evidence was unreliable in point of fact and ought not to be accepted except when it was corroborated, and that it was seasoned with malice towards his more successful rival. So let us have no nonsense about his being brave, or seeking to uncover scandals, or anything like that. The Report says the contrary.
The Minister has been criticised for the narrowness of the terms of reference. With hindsight, I agree with the criticism, but I do not think that Ministers ought to be criticised with hindsight. One should put oneself in the position of the Minister and say what one would have done in the light of one's knowledge at the time. I cannot say whether at that time I would have chosen the wider or the narrower terms of reference. What I am absolutely certain of is that I would have recognised the limitations which the narrower terms of reference, had I chosen them, placed upon the conduct of a Minister before he took adequate action of any kind on the Report.
As a result of the narrower terms of reference, and here I quote from the document of the National Union of Teachers,
There was no opportunity to place before the Tribunal any evidence relating to the professional competence and character of the head and staff, nor any reference to the life of the school, particularly its standing …
This governed the whole conduct of the inquiry.
This limitation not only governed the whole conduct of the inquiry, but was


expressly brought to the attention of the Commissioner. In his Report—and again I do not think that anyone should go behind it—the Commissioner draws the attention of the Home Secretary to this fact—and this is the answer to something said by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker)—in the following words:
It is not within the Terms of Reference for me to comment on the quality of supervision exercised by the managers in regard to the administration of punishment in this school. They did not know the evidence on which my findings have been based for they relied upon the information contained in the Punishment Book or given to them by the headmaster, and those who could have brought the irregularities to their attention refrained from doing so.
I respectfully agree with the rejoinder made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. This school was inspected regularly—fully in 1963, and year by year thereafter—and only in January the headmaster, whose conduct has been the subject of such violent, and to my mind, unjustifiable abuse by one hon. Member, was appointed to the school with not only the approval but, I was told by my right hon. Friend, the warm recommendation of the Home Office. It is enough to say that no one has questioned the judgment of the National Union of Teachers that the headmaster has spent the whole of his professional life in approved school service and stands very high in the estimation of his colleagues.

Mr. Whitaker: But would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that managers who did not know that this state of affairs existed in the school and had existed for several years were not doing their job? Could he not agree that any Minister, on either side, who sought to escape from his responsibility when such a scandalous state of affairs existed in his Department could not escape responsibility for either inefficiency or connivance?

Mr. Hogg: I should like to develop my arguments stage by stage, but I do not, in the light of the findings of the Report, accept that the responsibility lay more on the managers than on the Home Office, or on either, or in what proportion.
At the inquiry, counsel instructed on behalf of the Treasury Solicitors expressly gave an undertaking to the Commissioner in the terms which my right hon. Friend

the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) has read. It was in unequivocal terms. He said—and I had better turn up the actual words—that nobody was in the dock, and that no disciplinary consequences would follow or could properly follow without a further investigation. The matter would have to be investigated subsequently by the appropriate authority and it would give an opportunity of defence, and so on. No responsible counsel would say that without the Treasury Solicitor's instructions.
This promise has not been kept. It has been broken. Even if it had not been given, I know of no honest member in my profession who would not have given it as his opinion that the rules of natural justice require not less than what counsel said at the inquiry, and which the Commissioner accepted. And even if that were not the case, the National Union of Teachers has informed me, as it has informed the right hon. Gentleman, that to dismiss a headmaster of any kind, or a deputy headmaster, without taking these precautions, would have been unheard of in the teaching profession.
The right hon. Gentleman has had to face the censure not only of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends and myself, but of the four trade unions—professional associations—involved in this matter, not the least of which is the extremely experienced and extremely responsible National Union of Teachers. It knows what is right or wrong in these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman has done what is wrong.
I want now to develop, stage by stage, the point at which the right hon. Gentleman, at least in my judgment, went wrong. I am bound to say that I am profoundly shocked and distressed at what happened after the receipt of the Report. Does the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wish to intervene?

Mr. Paget: I only wish to point out that the managers offered to sack the man.

Mr. Hogg: I recognise that point, and I was just coming to it. The essence of the case for the Home Secretary was that this man had not been dismissed. I consider that to be both a discreditable


and an unworthy quibble. The Report was received by the right hon. Gentleman towards the end of July. What ought he to have done on receipt of that Report?
I accept at once that no Home Secretary in his right mind would have failed to treat that report extremely seriously. I say so for this reason. The Report contained some findings which appeared to me to be either uncontradicted or irrefutable of breaches of the regulations relating to corporal punishment.

Mr. Victor Yates: Brutality.

Mr. Hogg: No, it does not find brutality but repeated allegations proved of breaches of the regulations relating to corporal punishment. I would have treated it at least as seriously, possibly even more seriously, than the Home Secretary did. He was obviously quite right to do so. Quite obviously different minds will attach different importance to the particular findings, but the particular finding to which I attach most importance—I have some reason for thinking that the National Union of Teachers takes the same view—was that the instrument which was used throughout the period under review was an unlawful instrument.
I pause for a moment, even though it is not strictly relevant to the Motion, to stress the importance of that. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton said in his speech—I think that it was the only statement of his which I could conscientiously endorse—that the Home Office approved cane breaks if one hits too hard. It is, and must be, a very serious thing to use an instrument which is unauthorised. I shall now do what the hon. and learned Member did not do. I will read verbatim the findings of the Report which I think on this point the Home Secretary should have accepted—on this point, and indeed most others.
The most charitable thing I can say to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton about his speech at any stage is that I think his early experiences have warped his judgment of what is just and unjust, because he allowed himself to use language about the two persons whose professional reputation is at stake in this House which he would not have done had he paid due attention to this

paragraph, which he refused to read when I invited him to do so.
The fact was that this cane had been found by the headmaster with a batch of others left behind by his predecessor. The predecessor, very foolishly, discovering that the Home Office cane broke, had gone to another source of supply. I shall not name it, but it came under most unfortunate notice by the Press some years ago. Certainly, at that time I formed the impression that not only was it not a satisfactory source of supply—I use the expression as a warning—but it was at that time catering for more types of clientele than one. This batch of canes was found in the headmaster's desk.
This is what the Commissioner finds about it:
Mr. Haydon had used an approved cane at his previous school … and so ought to have recognised that the canes he took over on going to Court Lees School were of a larger calibre. He frankly admitted that it was negligent of him to have failed to do so. I think that he, like …
his predecessor, who is named—
did not trouble to think whether the cane was proper to be used or not, but it was not unreasonable for him to assume that the canes he took over at the school on his assuming office were properly authorised canes.
Those are facts I cite, not in defence of this man because I accept that the breach of the regulations was extremely serious and it was the headmaster's responsibility to see that they were kept, but because in his speech the hon. and learned Member, under the influence of earlier experiences which no doubt were extremely painful, and from which he claims to have recovered, implies that this kind of cane was knowingly used by this master. This was not so. The cane was not to his knowledge the wrong one. It must have escaped the knowledge of the Home Office inspector, also.

Mr. Victor Yates: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman note the beginning of that paragraph which says:
at all times since the end of 1961 an unauthorised cane has been used at this school

Mr. Hogg: Yes, but the period in which the headmaster was in office was from January, 1967. I think that I have stated the case perfectly fairly.
I am seeking to answer the crucial question in this case of what the Home


Secretary ought to have done. Clearly, he was right to take it extremely seriously. The first thing he ought to have done was to see to it that those whose reputation and whose possible employment was in question were brought before him, or before a senior official, and asked to explain what they had done and why, and been given an ample opportunity to defend themselves as we give an ample opportunity to the meanest of criminals in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to have summoned the managers and given them a full opportunity for reading the Report. He ought to have discussed it with them and, in the light of what he had found after a fair trial, he ought to have told them what he thought ought to be done. He did neither of those things. In breach of the undertaking by his counsel, and in breach of the completely universal practice, I am informed, in the teaching profession—certainly in breach of natural justice, which is far more important than either—he failed to give these persons any hearing at all.
The right hon. Gentleman made his decision, a provisional decision, to close the school without hearing the managers at all. That was the first thing he did wrong. Then he sent one copy—I do not complain about that—to the chairman of the managers. The chairman of the managers was not allowed to communicate with his colleagues. He was summoned and seen, not by the Home Secretary but by a senior official, and told that the Home Secretary had provisionally already made up his mind. That was the second thing he did wrong. It is vital if one is to be a just judge—that is what the Home Secretary should have been—to hear both sides and not to make up one's mind, even provisionally, until one has done so.
Then the chairman of the managers asked to communicate with his colleagues, and was refused. When the 12, or 13 I believe, met together on 5th August they were authorised at last by the Home Secretary to discuss the matter, but they never had an adequate opportunity of considering the Report. They had only one copy for all of them. They had been refused any more. As the Home Secretary in his statement complained that they did not properly realise the implications

of the Report, which at that stage had not been published, I wonder whether on reflection he does not ask himself how they could consider adequately the implications of the Report which they had not been allowed to read.
The story goes on another stage. Having been told, first, that the school was to be closed and, secondly, that it would be closed unless they provided an alternative solution, they asked for more time to consider the Report, and they were refused it. They asked for an interview and were refused that until my right hon. Friend granted it, or so he said. The interview took place. I do not know how far at this stage the Home Secretary regards that interview as confidential. Certainly, I do not know, except what has been said about it by others, what took place at that interview.
It appears not to have been denied that at that interview, whatever else he may have said, the Home Secretary said that he would continue the school on the condition, amongst others, that the headmaster should be dismissed. The managers—I find them guilty of doing so—although they protested that it was unjust because the headmaster had never been tried and had never been heard, accepted the Home Secretary's condition.
The Home Secretary, through his colleagues in another place, has made great play of the fact, or what he claims to be a fact, because I do not think that it is a fact, that Mr. Haydon has not been dismissed, that his employment has only been terminated on six months' notice—redeployment, perhaps.
Even that is not the gravamen of the charge against the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary offered to keep the school open if that was done which his counsel at the inquiry had promised would not be done, namely, that people should be condemned and dismissed summarily without trial. They have never had a trial. That is the gravamen of the charge. When the Home Secretary says that the teachers were not dismissed because their employment was only terminated after six months' notice, in the light of the first of those four conditions I regard that, if it is right, as a shoddy and disreputable quibble. I am very sorry that the Home Secretary, or his colleagues in another place, should have lent themselves to it.
There were three other conditions, one of which related to Mr. Cook. I shall return to Mr. Cook later, because I do not think, whatever else was true, that that ought to have been a breaking point on either side. The other two conditions were—I have them here, but they have been spoken to—

Mr. Ivor Richard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Later on; not in the middle of a sentence—the appointment of a man whom the Home Secretary had in mind as temporary headmaster—accepted—and the withdrawal of a number of existing managers to be appointed by the local authority—accepted under protest.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I apologise for trying to interrupt him in the middle of a sentence. I thought that he had stopped. I am listening to his speech with a great deal of interest and attention. I wish to ask him one question. Does he accept the findings of the Gibbens inquiry? If he does accept those findings, as I think that he does, does he think, on reflection, that those men ought to have been allowed to have continued in the approved school service?

Mr. Hogg: I have already accepted the substantial findings. My answer to the second question is that they certainly should not have been forbidden to continue without fair trial. This is the point. If I had given them a fair trial, if I had heard what they had to say and what could have been said in their behalf, although I do not think that I would have brought about the closure of the school, which is a far more serious step in the educational world than some people seem to think, I think that I might very likely have demanded the resignation of the headmaster or his dismissal. I could not, I would not and I would never concede the possibility that I could, condemn a man without a hearing.
That is what the Home Secretary has done. The Home Secretary not only did it without a hearing, but after having promised, through his counsel, a hearing before anything was done. This is what dismays me.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who did hold the office of Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether during the whole period he held that office, when undoubtedly, I am informed, several hundreds of teachers must have been dismissed, he ever saw a single teacher himself in connection with that process?

Mr. Hogg: I think probably only once, but they all had a fair trial. They were all given a full hearing before the tribunal recognised by the National Union of Teachers or their professional association. There is no such tribunal available in the approved school service, and I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us that that will be remedied.
In the absence of an appropriate tribunal, and of wider terms of reference, it was manifestly the Home Secretary's duty either to set up one or to hear the man himself. I do not hesitate to say that in the extraordinarily difficult and poignant circumstances of this case I would have heard him myself. I am sure that the Home Secretary should have done so.
It is not only that. In the excuse which was put forward in the Home Secretary's statement after the second interview it was said that he was not sure that the managers really realised the implications of the Report. I assert, I think beyond the possibility of cavil, that when the Home Secretary allowed that to go out in his name he was being inaccurate; he was deceiving himself. It could not possibly be true. He had already made up his mind provisionally to close the school before he had even seen the chairman of the managers and before the chairman of the managers had seen the Report.
As I have tried to demonstrate, the Home Secretary finally made up his mind before the managers had had a proper opportunity of considering the Report and after they had already agreed, with one exception, to the conditions for the continuance of the school which the Home Secretary himself had imposed.
I come back to the unfortunate and rather unattractive Mr. Cook. I think that it was quite right to accept the extended leave which Mr. Cook asked for and was subsequently given, because the tragedy of Mr. Cook—this is a


tragedy—is that, whatever undertaking the Home Secretary may have given him not to victimise him, in substance that undertaking, too, has been broken. Mr. Cook's career is as irretrievably blighted as that of the headmaster. Even that would have been unnecessary if the Home Secretary had realised the seriousness of closing the school and if only he had understood that before either a person or an institution is condemned both sides of the case must first be heard. That the Home Secretary failed to do.
I have only one more thing to say to the Home Secretary about this case. That is about the future. It is obvious that the boys cannot be reassembled in this school and that the only thing that the Home Secretary can now do is to reopen it at the earliest moment in an appropriate form.
I want just to say this in confirmation of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said at the beginning. This school, the largest of its kind in the country, the only purpose-built approved school, so I am told, is run at the moment under the terms of a trust. It may very well be, as the hon. Member for Hampstead said, and as many people think, that this method of running approved schools has probably outlived its usefulness. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity of discussing it. In the meantime, three-quarters of Britain's approved schools are run under voluntary management of one sort or another. They are run under the possession of a local trust. That is the law of the land.
If Parliament wants to alter it and to destroy these trusts, it has the power, and perhaps the duty, to do so. It is wrong for the Home Secretary to cajole or blackmail by the financial method, which is what I am told he did, a set of managers and a set of trustees who are running an institution under the law of the land. This is lawlessness. What the Home Secretary did, so I am informed, was to threaten to reclaim the £200,000 of public money which has been invested in this building unless the trustees did what he told them. That is to ask them to cease to act as trustees and to substitute his own discretion for theirs. This is not lawful action.
I think that it is almost unprecedented for a Minister to act in this way. Indeed, the only precedent that I can think of is that of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is sitting on the Front Bench opposite, in the action over Enfield which was condemned by the courts of law not very long ago.

6.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am extremely glad that this debate is at last taking place. I suppose it is in general the case that Ministers, and not only Ministers, welcome periods of Parliamentary respite, but I am bound to say that I greatly regret the fact that the House was not sitting when the Court Lees controversy was at its height. It would have given me an opportunity then to deal with the spate of misleading propaganda which has since come out on this issue—and propaganda, if I may say so, in which the boys have to a large extent been treated as pawns.
I must say, also, that while I thought that, on the whole, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made a moderate speech—and I am grateful for his opening remarks—the attitude of some other hon. Members of the Opposition ever since the House reassembled has been somewhat curious. They have refused to let this matter die—I do not blame them for that—but they have also been extremely reluctant to bring it to a head. They have tried to probe in the other place where I could not answer, and at Question Time there was nothing on the Order Paper from hon. Members opposite, while the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), who says that he has lived with this issue for three months, was not even present in his place.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: It happened that I was in my constituency. I had a very important engagement, otherwise I would certainly have been here. I should like to add that I am not to blame for the fact that this matter was not debated earlier.

Mr. Jenkins: The fact remains that on the first Thursday that the House met the Home Office was first on the Order Paper for Questions, and I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, if he was as concerned as he said he was


—and I accept that he was—would have made a special effort to be here on that occasion.

Mr. Hogg: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to know that I did my best to bring this matter before the House earlier, but I was advised that today is the first reasonable opportunity that we have. I share the right hon. Gentleman's regret that it was not debated earlier.

Mr. Jenkins: May I now explain why I regard this matter as of some significance? It is because of one fact which has been touched on but has not been fully realised in the debate. The Opposition Motion attacks me on the carefully chosen ground of the rights of the teachers at Court Lees. It also has a fairly perfunctory reference to the welfare of the pupils, but we have not heard very much of that in the debate. I rather suspect that that bit was added by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), whose name is on the Motion but who, wisely, has not attended any part of this debate.
There are 41 members of the staff, and the position of 37 of them—I shall come to the others in a few minutes—has retained an element of uncertainty precisely because of this dilatory attitude on the part of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Right from the beginning we have envisaged that the Surrey County Council would take over and reopen the school and reengage the overwhelming majority of the staff before their period of notice ran out.
I should like to pay tribute to the attitude which the Surrey County Council, which rightly enjoys a very high reputation for its children's services, has taken throughout. But what has been the difficulty? It has been that the trustees of the school, a body which can be described as the core of the managers, have refused to open negotiations for the transfer of the property while Parliamentary action remained pending—and pending it has certainly remained.
For three or four months past we have been trying to get the trustees to agree to such a transfer. That was either delayed or refused because they said they could not agree that the issue was settled while Parliamentary action might overturn my decision. That is a perfectly legitimate view of Parliamentary action,

but it might be an argument for taking it rather more swiftly if the interests of the teachers was of such importance; and in the second place—

Sir Spencer Summers: Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury) rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot give way again. I have already done so once.
In the second place, it makes it clear where the responsibility for continued uncertainty lies. Nevertheless, after strong pressure from me, the managers agreed that the Surrey County Council could write to 39 of the staff a week ago, but, because of the attitude of the managers, they are able to make only provisional offers. They expressed the hope that there will be no break in the service, and I greatly share that hope, but if there is, the responsibility will lie in part with the managers and the trustees, in part with the right hon. Gentleman who toyed with this issue for so long—

Mr. Ray Mawby: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is making some very serious allegations. Is it not a fact that any Minister has an opportunity at any time to bring a Motion before the House, asking that his actions shall be supported by the House? He does not have to wait for the Opposition to put down a Motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: There is no point at all in this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] There is no point of order and there is no other point in it.
The attitude of the managers was that this issue was to be raised by the Opposition and that my action might be overturned. I have been waiting for that to be done. Let there be no thought either that the managers—this brings me to the last point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made—are asked to give up some valuable piece of property on unfair terms, or that I am behaving in any way in an illegal manner towards the trust. Court Lees, it is true, stems from an old charity founded about 100 years ago, but at least since 1922 the school has been run exclusively on public funds. Since 1937, every penny of expenditure, capital or


current, has come either from the Home Office or from the local authorities.
So far as the capital position is concerned, it is provisionally estimated that the school is now worth approximately £175,000, but the managers are liable to repay to the Exchequer approximately £195,000 which has been spent on buildings I have not threatened them with anything—quite the contrary. There could be a possible legal position whereby they would be liable for the balance of £20,000, but, so far from threatening them with this, we propose to extinguish their debts and, subject to negotiation with them and the Charity Commission, allow them, perhaps over-generously, to retain something in respect of the original charitable contribution to apply to other charitable purposes Therefore, there is nothing in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point.
Despite this complete and longstanding dependence on public funds, the managers were a self-perpetuating, self-elected body with no public authority holding any rights of nomination. This is one of the anomalies of the present approved school system and it is something that I want to put right as soon as I can.
Even without powers, however, the Home Office felt it necessary long before my day to express disquiet about the composition of this particular board of managers. It had been dominated for nearly half a century by the previous chairman, who died only in May of this year. As recently as 1955—I believe that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was serving at the Home Office—he was assisted by only five other managers. One was his wife. Another was his son. A third was the present chairman. The fourth and fifth were a married couple.
The ingrowing and inadequate nature of this committee was pointed out to the then chairman by the Home Office inspectors, but he expressed great resentment at this intrusion and took no action. A few years later, however, he made a substantial concession. He added his nephew to the board, and also another local resident. In 1963, the inspectors reported:
The managers are reluctant to recruit additional members unless they are quite sure that their faces will fit, but they have

recently added one to their numbers in the person of the vice-chairman's wife.
So this "representative" body continued, inspired, certainly—I say this perfectly seriously—with no object other than that of public service, but at the same time, drawn from a hopelessly narrow social field, and very close-knit within itself. At the time of the publication of the Report, out of a membership of 13 six were still made up of three husband and wife teams.
I mention these facts about the managers because an important element in my decision to withdraw the certificate was a lack of confidence in their ability, in the difficult circumstances which had arisen, to give the school the fresh start which the Gibbens Report made essential. This lack of confidence, however, sprang principally not from the nature of the board but from their attitude to the inquiry and its results. Before I come to describe this attitude, I must say a word about the inquiry itself.
The inquiry was set up immediately following the identification of the anonymously complained of school. The managers resented the idea of an independent inquiry. They thought the allegations unimportant. But, when they were told that there had to be an inquiry, we have no record—I must contradict the right hon. Member for Reigate here—of their making representations in favour of wider terms of reference. Their view was that there was no need for an inquiry.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Two witnesses, Judge Cohen and the headmaster, both went to the Home Office on 17th May.

Mr. Jenkins: We have no record of that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and, as I shall have to say in a few moments, on at least one other issue Judge Cohen's recollection is capable of being inaccurate. Neither did we receive representations from the staff. At this stage, indeed, the only formal representations in favour of a wider inquiry came from the Haywards Heath juvenile court magistrates, who wished to bring to the attention of Mr. Gibbens the lack of co-operation which they had received from the school in connection with the release of boys and their aftercare. But we ruled this out.
Mr. Gibbens's job, in my view— and it remains my view—was to investigate with judicial skill specific allegations, not to make general pronouncements of opinion about Court Lees or about approved schools in general. This was contested by no one within the school until they found that they did not like the result of his investigation.
As has been said, the inquiry was held in private. This was done because the experience of the Carlton School inquiry in 1959 suggested strongly that it would be quite impossible to run the school effectively while a public inquiry was in progress. No representations against this decision were received. Mr. Gibbens himself decided, this time in accordance with the Carlton precedent, that masters should not be present when boys were giving their evidence; but the headmaster was present the rest of the time, and the legal representatives of those directly concerned, including the headmaster, were present throughout, and, quite contrary to a suggestion in a letter published in The Guardian last week, they subjected the witnesses to full cross-examination.
Furthermore, there were adjournments for counsel to consult their clients about any allegations made in their absence. No objection to this procedure was expressed by anyone. It was open to any of the parties to call any evidence relevant to the issue. If they did not do so, it was their own choice.

Mr. Jennings: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon had no prior knowledge of the detailed charges which were being laid against them, and will he agree, also, that their legal advisers were not shown copies of the boys' complaints prior to the hearing, so that they could not take instructions from the men who were being condemned?

Mr. Jenkins: No; I understand that they were shown all the proofs of evidence which had been taken. In any event, if anything came out in cross-examination, their counsel were there and were able to consult their clients and take instructions from them.

Mr. Jennings: Is it not obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is not certain of the facts of his reply? Will he give

me an assurance that he will corroborate or deny what I have just said?

Mr. Jenkins: I will check any fact which the hon. Gentleman puts to me, but what I am confident of is that Mr. Gibbens, who is a very experienced Queen's Counsel, with great experience as a recorder, conducted this inquiry properly and judicially. What we constantly have is an attempt, in different ways, to say, "Well, the inquiry is more or less all right. We more or less accept it". Hon. Gentlemen must face the fact that there is no basis of evidence at all to suggest that the inquiry was not scrupulously conducted, and, that being so, it should be accepted.
Mr. Gibbens sat for five days and conducted a most searching inquiry. The result was described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reigate in August as "a very fair report". He went a little back on that today—not much, but a little. It was a Report which set itself high standards of proof. Mr. Gibbens did not proceed on a balance of probability or on any uncorroborated statements by boys. Where Mr. Cook's evidence conflicted with that of the headmaster, he preferred the latter except where Mr. Cook was reliably corroborated.
Several hon. and right hon. Members, including, notably, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, have quoted some concluding remarks made by the barrister who presented the case on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor but who at no time—I must make this clear to the House—was acting on behalf of or on instructions from the Home Office. He certainly did not give assurances on instructions from myself or anyone else at the Home Office. Indeed, they were not assurances but observations directed to where the burden of proof might lie. What is much more significant, however, is that these observations appear to have been rejected by Mr. Gibbens, for in the middle of the exchange Mr. Gibbens stated clearly:
I have to consider this, that if I am finding one way or another in respect of a particular master, it may cost him his job".
What was the substance of this very fair Report? As the controversy developed, there has been a strong tendency for this central issue to be buried and forgotten. The headmaster was found


specifically to have contravened three of the approved school rules relating to corporal punishment, to have contravened the clear spirit of one other, and to have failed to observe the common law rule as to severity of punishment. This led to caning, which Mr. Gibbens described as greatly excessive in severity in the case of one boy, almost of the same degree in the case of another, and excessive in the case of two more. The deputy headmaster was found to have contravened two rules.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that counsel on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor used these words, which I take from the transcript:
If someone was found to be under criticism or blamed in the report of a tribunal of this nature and dismissed or disciplinary action taken as the result of it, he would necessarily be the subject of a further inquiry or investigation, and so forth".
Were those his words or not?

Mr. Jenkins: That is precisely the point to which I have just directed myself. It was put at considerably greater length and, I think, with even more legal acumen by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, and I have given the answer to it, which, in my view, is a very important answer, namely, the words which Mr. Gibbens used during the exchange.
It has since been persistently suggested that the conclusions of the Report were invalid, because the photographic evidence did not stand up. That is a baseless suggestion. The photographic evidence was one of the central issues before the inquiry. Its authenticity was strongly supported by expert witnesses, and was in no way contested by any of the parties. But then, after the Report was published and I had announced my decision, there were numerous suggestions in the Press—some couched in very extreme terms, particularly by the deputy headmaster—that it could be undermined.
I therefore looked most carefully at, and took most careful legal advice upon, the so-called new evidence which was sent in. It was of no substance at all, despite the fact that facilities had been granted for fresh interviews of boys after the inquiry, and for further independent expert scrutiny of the photographic evidence.
I was, nevertheless, fully prepared to hear representations in its favour and at the meeting I had with the four professional bodies on 11th September, I was waiting for these representations to be forthcoming. But they were not. The point was abandoned, and those present agreed that the photographic evidence was no longer challenged. But that has not prevented a continuation of the misrepresentation of this point—not by the right hon. Gentleman, but a great deal outside. In my view, professional organisations would be wise to discourage their members from repeating points that they have themselves abandoned when they had an opportunity to put them to the proof.
Having dealt with the conduct of the inquiry, I now return to the attitude of the managers to the Report, which was central to my decision. It should be borne in mind that at least one of the managers was present throughout all parts of the inquiry, so that they were aware of the course of the evidence. Throughout the period leading up to the inquiry, during it, after it and on the receipt of the Report, they were concerned above all with one thing—to get rid of Mr. Cook, the master whose allegations had brought the whole matter to light. So insistently did they persist that it was necessary for Home Office inspectors, between the conclusion of the inquiry and the publication of the Report, to attend a special meeting of the managers and urge them not to send Mr. Cook on enforced leave even before publication. The inspectors succeeded with difficulty, but at the price of being subjected to a good deal of abuse by the managers.
There is another point which I must mention here. After the appointment of Mr. Gibbens, a good deal of beating continued to take place at Court Lees. There were 10 such canings between mid-May and mid-June. In his letter to The Times last week, the chairman claimed that these were all carried out only after express permission had been obtained from the appropriate official at the Home Office. That is untrue—[An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."]—and unless the chairman was even more out of touch with his school than I feared I find it difficult to believe that he did not know that it was untrue.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I checked up on this early on in the inquiry, and I can, in private, give the name of the official who gave the permission.

Mr. Jenkins: No. I propose to go on and state the position, because I have checked this carefully after reading the letter.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am very reluctant to give the name—

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that it will help if the right hon. Gentleman does give the name.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I shall give it in writing to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkins: What I propose to do is to state the position as I understand it to be, having made most careful inquiries. If the right hon. Gentleman submits the name, I shall investigate the matter further most carefully, and if I have been misinformed I will, of course, apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Mr. Hogg: Of course, I absolutely accept the good faith of the Home Secretary in this matter. I would not question it for an instant. But this is an extraordinary conflict of evidence. After all, the chairman is, I understand, a county court judge and the right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Councillor, both people of the highest repute. Can the Home Secretary not cause an investigation to be published about this extraordinary conflict, which disturbs me profoundly, because I do not doubt for an instant the right hon. Gentleman's complete good faith in the matter?

Mr. Jenkins: I certainly do not doubt the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman. I have observed the name which he has written down. It is the name of an official who is known to me and whom I have consulted about the matter.
I now propose to continue—

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I will give way at the end of this passage.
I now propose to continue and to state the position as I believe it to be. When we decided that it was necessary to hold an inquiry, we strongly advised the chairman that caning should be discontinued. The chairman and the headmaster repre-

sented strongly, however, that in certain circumstances caning might be essential to maintain discipline.
On 15th May—and this may explain the misunderstanding—we therefore agreed that in such exceptional circumstances caning might be justified provided it was administered strictly in accordance with the approved school rules, and we advised the headmaster to consult a Home Office inspector before using it. However, the Home Office inspectors were not consulted about the subsequent caning of any individual boy, and it is their considered view that in none of the 10 cases when it was subsequently used was it essential for discipline, or professionally justifiable on other grounds.
That is the position, and I think that this may explain the misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman may be referring to the general position, but what the letter said was that specific permission was given in each case when it was used, and that is quite untrue.
I confess freely that this whole background influenced me in my reaction to the Report. I thought the Report extremely serious, and I still do, and I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman also took this view. I trust that hon. Members generally do so, as well. Yet it was clear from the contacts we had what the attitude of the managers was likely to be—sack the man who brought the trouble to light; shrug everything else off. This proved to be almost exactly right. I therefore reached a preliminary view that the best solution was likely to be a withdrawal of the certificate of approval.
But it was not final view at that stage. I asked my Permanent Under-Secretary to see the chairman, tell him that this was my preliminary view and ask him whether he wished to make any counter-suggestions. This was done six days before publication. There was no question of the chairman's being unduly rushed. He was sent a copy of the Report little more than 12 hours after I saw it myself. He had four days to consider it before the first meeting, and another six days before publication.
I was cautious about wider distribution of the Report. After all, it was a Parliamentary Paper. I had a duty to prevent it "leaking" before it was published and


available to Members of the House. Furthermore, a "leakage" in advance of the decision about the future of the school might well have had a very adverse effect upon discipline there. I do not think that we could have distributed 13 copies around Surrey a week or more in advance without that happening.
However, the chairman was certainly left with flexibility about the timing of his meeting, and the amount of time, therefore, available for discussion with the other managers before a decision had to be reached. The managers, in fact, discussed the Report exhaustively—and it is a fairly short Report—at their Saturday meeting before they came to see me the next day. I wish that they could have had more time, but I do not think that it would have begun to influence the outcome.
The chairman, who, without question, had plenty of time, faithfully mirrored the attitude of his committee throughout—subject only to the one proviso that some of them tended to be more intransigent than he was.
What was their attitude and why did it create an unbridgeable gap between them and me? First, there was a complete failure to appreciate the seriousness of the Report or to feel real concern at the brutality which they had allowed to go on under them. Secondly, they had great reluctance to see that the allegations made against the headmaster made it impossible for him to go on supervising the school. But this reluctance, let us be clear, sprang from no respect for the rights of the staff as such. They had been insistently demanding the removal of Mr. Cook and for the deputy headmaster, who is severely criticised in the Report, although less so than the headmaster, they had little concern. They were willing to get rid of him without much further ado.
The difference between us, apart from their failure to appreciate the implications of the Report, was about Mr. Haydon and Mr. Cook. They took the view that Mr. Cook must go and Mr. Haydon should stay. On the first point, they were adamant. There was not the slightest indication that, however many meetings were held, they would budge. On the second point, they were prepared to budge, but reluctantly.
I must define my attitude on both these points. Like most others who have considered the matter, I regard Mr. Cook's conduct as far from ideal. He did not proceed in the way he should have done. But I am also bound to place on record my view that he could have complained about the excessive use of corporal punishment to the headmaster or to the managers until he was blue in the face and would have got nowhere.
Mr. Cook was no doubt an awkward colleague. I think that his longer term future may not lie with Court Lees, and I told the managers this. I accept what Mr. Gibbens said about Mr. Cook, but I also accept that, having said that, Mr. Gibbens found much of his evidence to be corroborated and true. It follows, then, that Mr. Cook was the agent, the necessary agent, in bringing to light a grave scandal and abuse of trust. Those who perform such roles are often difficult men and awkward colleagues. If I had allowed the managers to react to the report, and to show almost no further reaction to the report, by dismissing this agent of the unpleasant truth, I would have been totally failing in my duty.

Mr. Hogg: There is one point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain, because it seems to me to go very deep in relation to Mr. Haydon. Does it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that, if Mr. Haydon had been shown these photographs the first time they were seen, or the damage done by the unauthorised instrument which the Report finds he did not know was not the approved type, he must have discontinued the canings? Is it not elementary that we should investigate from Mr. Haydon's point of view the effect that this kind of knowledge must have had upon him?

Mr. Jenkins: I find it difficult to answer questions as hypothetical as that. What I do know is that Mr. Haydon, when he knew that an inquiry was being set up into these allegations, continued to administer the 10 canings to which I have drawn the attention of the House.
I was about to turn to the position of Mr. Haydon. I took the view on the basis of the Report that I could not allow him to remain in charge of the boys at Court Lees. Had the managers given me confidence in their ability to


give the school the necessary fresh start, this could have been achieved either by their dismissing him or asking him to resign, and had they dismissed him he would have had certain rights of appeal to them. But as things were my only other alternative was to withdraw the certificate.
It is the core of the Opposition Motion, as I understand it, that neither course should have been followed by me without some further inquiry and, therefore, some further considerable delay. I find this an unacceptable proposition. First, it would remove almost the only effective power which the Home Secretary has for discharging his Parliamentary responsibilities for approved schools. He is answerable for what goes on in these schools and, in my view, the nature of the schools gives him a special and peculiar responsibility. These schools are often isolated units. The boys are compulsorily committed and they do not in the normal way see their parents for long periods. Compulsory commitment makes these schools different from private boarding schools. Separation from parents makes the schools different from ordinary day schools.
These two factors make it peculiarly important that the boys there should be protected from any abuse of authority and they are perhaps reinforced, certainly in my mind, by the fact that those who are sent to approved schools have mostly broken the rules of society. This makes it especially important that those who teach them should not themselves break the rules.
What, after all, does the very term "approved school" mean? It means that it is approved by the Home Secretary. It means that he takes the responsibility to see that it is properly conducted and if his approval is to mean anything he must be able to withdraw it, and if he cannot withdraw it on the basis of a five-day independent inquiry leading to the un-covery of grave abuse, when can he withdraw it?
Of course, the withdrawal of the certificate, even though it is not technically dismissal, involves unpleasant consequences for the headmaster and his deputy. But, in all the circumstances, are those consequences oppressively unpleasant? Their contracts have been

terminated. How many people in this country in a normal week have their contracts terminated at much less than six months' notice, perhaps without any dereliction of duty and certainly without any allegation of misconduct against them being investigated by an independent tribunal, sifting evidence for five days and arriving at a clear conclusion?

Mr. Hogg: What I do not understand from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is why he could not either interview the man himself or have caused him to be interviewed, on suspension if need be, in accordance with the universal practice, as I understand it, of the teaching profession in order that, as the N.U.T. has put to me, mitigating circumstances, if any, which were excluded from the terms of reference, could be put to the right hon. Gentleman or his officials.

Mr. Jenkins: I think that this might have been done had the course of dismissal followed from agreement with the managers, but, as I say, unable to reach a basis of agreement with them, I had no alternative but to withdraw the certificate of approval.
Indeed, such a withdrawal of the certificate of approval can happen in a field not very far removed from that of approved schools. A few weeks ago, the Cheshire County Council closed a remand home temporarily and the staff lost their jobs. I have no reason to think that the county council's action was not right. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State defended it on Friday when my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) was concerned about it. But there has not been a peep from any Opposition Member from Cheshire or anywhere else about this. Yet there was no independent inquiry, no published report and no six months' notice. I might also add that there were no politics in it.
I turn to the future of the headmaster and the deputy headmaster. They have both lost their particular jobs. The Department of Education and Science have written to them and to one other master in relation to what is said about them in the Report, and if they wish there will be a hearing at which they can be heard and represented by a friend. It will then be for the Secretary of State


for Education and Science to decide whether they can continue to teach, and if so, whether in a residential establishment or not, whether in a supervisory capacity or not

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have given way many times and I will not give way again.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I will not give way.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) must resume his seat if the Home Secretary does not give way to him.

Mr. Jenkins: As far as other future appointments are concerned, I will take due note of what the Department of Education and Science says, but I must reserve the right to say that, in view of everything which has taken place, they should not be reappointed in any capacity at the reconstituted Court Lees or at least for the time being appointed to any other approved school as headmaster.
Having said all that, I must make it clear that I do not regard the present arrangements for dealing with staff disciplinary matters within approved schools as ideal. I regard a position similar to that in the maintained school area—a three-tier system, with a responsible body, such as the local authority or a national charitable organisation, standing between the staff and the Secretary of State and yet detached from both—as considerably preferable. But I did not create the present approved school system. On the contrary, I inherited it, and I propose to change it in important respects as quickly as I can.
But while I believe that structural change is necessary, I think that there is some outstandingly good work being done in approved schools at present. What happened at Court Lees and what we have been forced to discuss, to my regret, in considerable detail today—to my regret

not because I am afraid of discussing it, but because it means dragging out details about individuals—is not, I am perfectly sure, in any way typical of the general picture. But I ask those who live their lives in the approved school world to consider whether they are wise to give the impression that they will fly in the face of all the evidence to insist that what the Commissioner found did happen, in fact did not happen and could not have happen, or, if it did, that it did not matter very much.
The strength of the system and its public esteem is to be measured not by its determination to hush up abuses but by its eagerness to see that when they have been proved to exist they are put right. These were not abstract abuses. They were abuses, as has been described, affecting boys who mostly have a background of failure, rejection, lack of human affection, who are poised between a childhood of emotional disturbance and an adult life of possible menace to society. What happened to them?
Let me quote briefly from paragraph 37 of Mr. Gibbens' cool, judicial Report:
Further, in accordance with the practice I have mentioned in subparagraph (b) above, boys brought back to the school after absconding, if they are to be caned, are caned forthwith on their return, whatever the hour. Thus it often happens that a boy who arrives at the school late at night, disconsolate, tired after a long journey, and probably emotionally upset, is immediately caned. Any preliminary inquiry by the headmaster as to the reason for absconding, is probably cursory.
Again, in paragraph 57 we read:
Medical witnesses of great eminence in their profession, … gave evidence before me. They were unanimous in saying that the photograph revealed injuries in boy No. 2 of quite unusual severity. Professor Simpson and Dr. Teare declared that if such cases as boys Nos. 2 and 8 had been brought to them in their hospitals, they would have felt bound to call for an investigation by the police or other authority.
We have had the fullest investigation, of far greater power, and more judicial sifting of evidence, than that involved in any normal educational inquiry or appeal. I acted on its clear results. I acted quickly. I believe that I was right to do so. I ask the House to endorse my decision.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 278.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[7.35 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Murton, Oscar


Astor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nott, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, H.
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M. L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Qulntin
Ridsdale, Julian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, Cordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Channon, H. P. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Henry
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Silvester, Frederick


Cordle, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Stodart, Anthony


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Crouch, David
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Lane, David
Temple, John M.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, w.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, W. H.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser,Rt. Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wright. Esmond


Gibson-Watt, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wylie, N. R.


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Montgomery, Fergus



Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. More and Mr. Eyre.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marks, Kenneth


Alldritt, Walter
Gardner, Tony
Mason, Roy


Allen, Scholefield
Ginsburg, David
Maxwell, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mayhew, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, J. J.


Ashley, Jack
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William


Bence, Cyril
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Murray, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Booth, Albert
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Heffer, Eric, S.
Oram, Albert E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horner, John
Padley, Walter


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Pardoe, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Park, Trevor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Huckfield, Leslie
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, Ernest G (Battersea, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones,Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelley, Richard
Richard, Ivor


Delargy, Hugh
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dobson, Ray
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Donnelly, Desmond
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Ryan, John


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Eadie, Alex
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Finch, Harold
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackie, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thornton, Ernest


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mailalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfie1d,E.)
Tomney, Frank







Tuck, Raphael
Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Urwin, T. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Varley, Eric G.
Whitlock, William
Winnick, David


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woof, Robert


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Yates, Victor


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Harper and Mr. Fitch.


Wellbeloved, James
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

Orders of the Day — BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I beg to move,
That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision regarding the siting of the British Museum Library and the failure of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to carry out sufficient consultations with the statutory Trustees before announcing this decision.
In the debate on the Gracious Speech I had occasion to refer, in sharp and somewhat unparliamentary terms, to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Education and Science about this matter. We now have an opportunity to probe in greater depth into the action of the Secretary of State in reversing the firm decision, made and announced by the Conservative Government, to building the British Museum Library extension on the Bloomsbury site.
I should like, first, to deal with the Secretary of State's assertion, in which I trust he will not persist, that the only actual decision has been made by him. Equally, I hope, as a result of the representations which have poured in on him from every quarter, that he will at least consider the possibility that he has made a wrong decision in reversing previously agreed policy.
It is common ground between us that in 1951 the Bloomsbury site was designated for the building of the new library. A public inquiry was held in 1952 which canvassed at length all the main arguments for and against the scheme. The County of London Development Plan, of which this designation was part, was approved by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), in 1955. Sir Leslie Martin and Mr. St. John Wilson were commissioned as architects in August, 1962, to prepare a plan for the development of the site and a design for the library building to a definite brief. They were asked in that brief to make as much provision as pos

sible for residential use and for the replacement of some of the existing shops and offices, particularly those traditionally associated with the area, such as bookshops and publishers' offices.
While this plan was being prepared to a definite brief, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, in the years 1961–64, proceeded to purchase by agreement nearly £1½ million worth of land. In the summer of 1964, as Minister of Public Building and Works, I received the plan prepared by Sir Leslie Martin and Mr. St. John Wilson. I regarded that plan then, as I do now, as being both functionally excellent, and architecturally exciting, and I think I can say that Lord Radcliffe and the Trustees of the British Museum take the same view, and so do other independent experts in these matters. It is a plan which not only meets the urgent needs of the British Museum Library, but opens up a magnificent new vista of the British Museum and of Hawkmoor's splendid church, and creates a fine new piazza with amenities for the many visitors from home and overseas.
When the plan was received, Lord Radcliffe and I had discussions, of the sort which are known to be necessary, with Treasury Ministers to ensure that the proposals were admitted to the Government's investment programme, and so that a formal approval of the plan could be publicly announced. I made that public announcement on 24th September, 1964, and no one doubted then, or could possibly have doubted then or subsequently, that a firm decision to go ahead as speedily as possible had been taken.
I have exercised my right to inspect the files of my time as Minister to confirm my recollection of events. Moreover, Lord Radcliffe has entirely endorsed my recollection, and so, in effect, did the Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee of the London Borough of Camden in his letter to The Times of 3rd November, 1967. My public statement of 24th September made it clear


that consultations with the many interested authorities, including, of course, the housing and planning authorities, were to be held
with a view to working out ways and means of implementing the scheme.
There was no question of consultation about the principle of "aye" or "no". The development of the non-library part of the site, which comes to about one-quarter, requires such consultation.
I also emphasised that the scheme was an outline one, and not a final architectural solution, because naturally enough the architects themselves did not at that stage want to be committed to details. It was clear that regard also had to be paid to the factors governing the phasing of the building. It was not just a matter for negotiation with the Treasury. It was a matter of ensuring the erection of the building in stages to meet the operational requirements of the Museum, and the acquisition, and where necessary the demolition, of property in an orderly way which would facilitate rehousing, the replacement of the shops and offices, the provision of the underground car park, and other amenities. Thereafter, in pursuance of the plan, and under Labour Governments, a further £500,000 worth of land was acquired by the Ministry of Public Building and Works between 1965 and this year, so that in all about three-fifths of the site has been acquired.
For the Secretary of State to turn round now and say that he thought no firm decisions had been taken ismanifestly either mischievous or misguided. It may be that the officials of his Department have not been in sufficiently close touch with the Ministry of Public Building and Works, or it may be that standing in the wings, whispering the wrong advice, was the usual Treasury official who has a malevolent finger in nearly every curdled Government pie. At any rate, it is important that we have a firm assurance from the right hon. Gentleman today that, wherever it may be sited, the cost of extending the British Museum Library remains firmly in the Government's investment programme, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the dates for the carrying out of the operation have not been set back either.
The great danger is that progress in any direction may be held up for a decade or more. The right hon. Gentleman's action is certainly completely at variance with the observations of his Minister of State, the right hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee), who in March of this year described the storage of the greater part of the material in the British Museum out of sight of the public as
the most scandalous waste of precious national assets.
The right hon. Lady hoped that ways and means would be found of easing the congestion "quite quickly". Without an extension of the Library, the present Museum building cannot possibly house the collection and provide for expansion, and at the same time provide an adequate service to the public or provide facilities for the welfare of the staff.
In the words of the 1966 Report of the Trustees:
Recognition of all these insistent needs involves a requirement for more space, more equipment and more staff that in the long run is simply meaningless unless we can secure the provision and construction of the projected new library building on the south side of Great Russell Street by some date that is not merely a visionary appointment into the future.
The Trustees' complaint in the 1966 Report was that the programme envisaged in 1964—and certainly even that was slower than I or my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) would have wished—was already lagging two or three years behind schedule. But that the plan itself was to be carried out was naturally taken for granted. There was no reason why it should be otherwise, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw this absurd suggestion that no formal decisions were taken.
I turn, now, to the shabby way in which the Government have treated the Trustees in the matter of these so-called consultations. I think that Lord Radcliffe's letter to The Times of 31st October was really the most damning indictment imaginable of what he described as
the rapidly deteriorating standards of public administration.
Lord Radcliffe has stated categorically that he was never at any time told of any decision reached by the Secretary of State.


When he met the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on 14th June, he had not been called into consultation in any sense of the word. He went to express concern at the Government's inaction, and to protest at the failure to seek the Trustees' views on the observations of the Camden Borough Council. He had been seeking a meeting for some time, either with the Minister of Public Building and Works, or with the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who stepped into the breach in the absence of the former. Those observations by the Camden Borough Council, as the Chairman of its Planning and Development Committee, Mr. Shaw, has said publicly were made under the Circular 100 procedure, and, as he explained, dealt with comparatively minor and detailed aspects of the scheme relating particularly to the need for a larger degree of residential accommodation.
Those were consultations of the kind which I myself envisaged would have to take place.
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor accepted that these were matters on which the Trustees ought to have been allowed to make representations, and Lord Radcliffe thereupon undertook to furnish papers covering the particular points raised by the Camden Borough Council. Shortly afterwards, with the authority of the Trustees, two papers dealing with the local authority's point of view were supplied. From that day until the bombshell announcement on 26th November, it appears that Lord Radcliffe never heard a word from the Department of Education and Science on the subject either by way of comment, criticism or further inquiry.
In Lord Radcliffe's own words:
Mr. Crosland did not promise a further meeting when I left him, nor did I ask for one. For myself, I should have thought it absurd to raise the question. I have been accustomed to dealing with or for Government Departments for a good many years now, and it would not have occurred to me, in the context of this case, in which the Trustees are responsible by Statute for the conduct of the Museum, that their views would be set aside and a long settled plan abandoned without even a discussion as to the reasons for the rejection and an honest attempt made to work out a feasible alternative, if there is one, for what we all know to be so urgent and so important. Nothing has been done.

I would have thought that this House must come to the conclusion that that is a disgraceful way to treat a statutory body with statutory responsibiliies not just to the Minister and to the Government but to the House itself. It is for those reasons that the Motion regrets the failure of the Secretary of State to carry out sufficient consultations with the statutory Trustees before announcing his decision.
That deals with the deceit and with the curious process of so-called consultation. I come to the decision itself. What must concern us all is whether the Government have made a wrong decision, or, at the very least, a decision which in the national interest they should now agree to reconsider.
I share the view expressed in a letter to me from Sir Frank Francis, the Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum. After saying:
As you may imagine, I was amazed to hear what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in the House about the attitude of the former Government,
he went on:
If the present decision is not modified or abandoned, the result could be quite catastrophic not only for the future of the Museum Library itself but for our intellectual stature throughout the world.
As Sir Frank himself has said, it may be that no one creating this great institution afresh would necessarily make a Library and a Museum in one place, but the fact is—it is largely for historical reasons arising out of the foundation collections acquired from Sir Hans Sloane in 1753—we have done so. As a result, we have in one place an institution where books and antiquities are available to illuminate each other, and this has turned out to be an advantage which, in most people's view, we should treasure.
In that connection, it is significant that telegrams and letters have been coming in from all over the world regretting the Government's decision. I have a number of copies of telegrams and letters which I will gladly hand over to the Secretary of State, if they have not been pased to him already. They come from librarians throughout the United States and Europe, and, without exception, they stress that it is important for learned people in all countries that the Library and other parts of the British Museum


are kept together in adequate buildings in Central London.
Thus the Director-in-Chief of the Bibliothèque Royale of Belgium states in his telegram that the concentration of the collections and the Library gives the British Museum an exceptional preeminence among the cultural, artistic and intellectual institutions of Europe.
In similar vein, the University Librarian of Harvard has written:
The future location of the British Museum Library is a question of profound significance not only to Britain but to scholars everywhere. The British Museum is one of the cultural and intellectual glories of the world. A major factor in its pre-eminence as an institution of learning is the remarkable integration of the collections and the Library which is to be found in no other nation. The long agreed Bloomsbury site for the new Library would perpetuate the Museum's unique values to learning, whereas construction elsewhere would very seriously diminish the contribution to world scholarship that the British Museum alone has been able to make for the last century and more.Scholars, librarians and all men concerned for the continued importance of Great Britain as a world centre of intellectual and cultural activity deplore the recent decision against the Bloomsbury site for the Library. As a representative of American universities and libraries, I hope most earnestly that it will be possible to proceed with the imaginative and altogether excellent scheme for building the new library as an integral part of the great research institution to which the world continues to look for intellectual inspiration.
The House is not concerned simply with considering in isolation the position of the British Museum and the Library, important though that is. The development of the Bloomsbury site is a major London planning scheme as proposed by Sir Leslie Martin and Mr. St. John Wilson. It is closely linked with the existence and development of the University of London in the same area. It is significant that Sir Leslie Martin is closely associated with that as consultant and architect planner to the University. We have always envisaged that this site must be looked at as a whole and in relation to the surrounding activities. Together, the Museum and the University constitute a great centre of national and international learning.
I have to declare a close personal interest in this aspect of the matter as a member of the Court of London University. It is certain that the removal of the Library from Bloomsbury would be a great loss to the University. Many

of the libraries in the individual schools and institutes of the University have been able to make some economies in space for books and in annual purchases because the British Museum is so near. If it is moved to an area outside Central London, these savings would be lost, and that must be a matter of concern to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Moreover, the University would lose the advantage which it has at present of attracting many scholars from home and abroad because of the propinquity of the British Museum and Library.
Nor is it only resident scholars who are affected. The Library must be central not just for the benefit of London University but also for that of scholars and others who come up from the provinces and from the newer universities which do not have and perhaps can never hope to have the same library and research facilities.
The Government and the Secretary of State must understand how the London University has been developing its graduate studies extensively, and it is proposed that it should continue to do so. The British Museum in Bloomsbury is essential for much of the research work of both the students and the teaching staff. I hope that the Secretary of State has seen the letter in The Times this morning from the librarians of eight of the university specialist schools and institutes stressing the importance of these considerations. As they explain, it is the concentration of the British Museum and its Library taken together with the University and other neighbouring libraries which make up a complex which is unique in Great Britain and, indeed, in Europe, in being concentrated within less than one-twelfth of a square mile. As they say, to have everything within easy walking distance is an immense advantage for scholarship.
I regret that the Secretary of State has not yet given an assurance that the Government are concerned to provide an alternative to the Bloomsbury site in the central area of London. I hope that he will at least give that assurance tonight. If he cannot, we can only presume that the reason is that he has not the slightest idea where else in Central London the Library could go. It is inconceivable—I have no doubt that the Minister of Public Building and Works, who is present, could confirm this—that a site can be


found which will not present the same problems of land acquisition, demolition and replacement of housing and offices which have had to be overcome on the Bloomsbury site. If the right hon. Gentleman knows one, he can suggest it.
The Secretary of State said on 26th October:
The Government have decided to set up a small independent committee to examine the functions and organisation of the British Museum Library, the National Central Library, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology and the Science Museum Library … and to consider whether … such facilities should be brought into a unified framework."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 1905.]
I am not at all sure whether this is a sensible approach or that these libraries all have the same problems and difficulties, but, so be it—we are to have the new committee. I only hope that people of sufficient stature and authority will be willing to give their services to advise this Government. They cannot be much encouraged by the treatment meted out to the Trustees of the British Museum.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an undertaking that no future consideration of this problem by this new committee or any other body will be prejudiced by any action in regard to the Bloomsbury site. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is now weighing that request in his mind. No answer was given to this question when it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on 3rd November. He asked about the future of the land, already acquired at a cost of over £2 million by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. In our view—I hope that the Secretary of State will agree—it is essential to retain that land if the outcome of the new committee's deliberations is not to be prejudiced.
I see that, earlier this week, the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he had any plans for disposing of the land, and the Minister said that he had none. I gather that they were thinking about it, but we should know tonight that they will not prejudice the position in any way by disposing of it prematurely.
It would not be the first time that reversals of policy have brought trouble. I am told that, in the 1920s, the then Government bought an 11½ acre site from the Duke of Bedford for £425,000 and offered it to the University. The University refused to accept the conditions which the Government tried to attach to the offer, so they sold it back to the Duke of Bedford for the same sum. When the University got the land back two years later, they had to pay £525,000. It would be a pity if history repeated itself.
I beg the Secretary of State, quite humbly, to listen to the grave doubts in many quarters about the wisdom of this decision, and at least to indicate that he will keep an open mind and, if necessary, reconsider the position in the light of the new committee's findings or any other representations which he may receive, not only from the Trustees of the British Museum, but also from universities, libraries and scholars here at home and throughout the world. Anything else from him tonight, in the face of what has happened since he made his announcement on 26th October, can be regarded only as a wilful and obstinate refusal to listen to arguments from any quarter and a betrayal of a unique national heritage.

8.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): It might be convenient for the House if I intervene now, and say that perhaps I might be allowed, with the leave of the House, to speak again at the end of the debate if questions are raised which I do not deal with now.
This is our second debate on this subject in 13 days and the only conclusion which I can draw from these quick-fire and repetitive debates is that the Opposition have very little to attack us on; otherwise, to do the same thing twice in 13 days is a little odd. But that is their affair and not mine.
Our last debate, on 3rd November, was curious in a number of ways. First, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), rather surprisingly, decided to wind up a wide-ranging education debate with a speech on this one subject alone. He made not a single reference to any of the many other important points raised, on his side as well as


ours. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) suddenly barged in at the very end of that debate, of which he had not heard a word—

Mr. Rippon: Not so.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Well, practically not a word—and made a disorderly interjection. The second debate is all the odder because the right hon. Gentleman has repeated, almost completely, the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, although he made a less effective speech than his hon. Friend.
One of the main points put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—it is in the censure Motion—is that the Library and Museum must be kept together. I have never heard any rational argument advanced for this. It is a matter of metaphysical faith or possibly a historical argument, which was the one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used. Really, it rests on an instinctive Conservative belief that what has lasted for some time must, without further inquiry, be good. No other basis has been put forward.
The argument that the Museum Library must at all costs be unified with the Museum comes very ill from the Conservatives. In July, 1958, the previous Government themselves made a decision to split the Library into two. They separated off the scientific books, which they put into Whiteleys. If anyone were misled by all this talk about a unified Museum Library and went there to consult scientific books, he would be at the wrong address. Periodicals have also been hived off, to Colindale. In the light of this and the actions of the previous Government, they have a nerve to go on elevating into a great unbreakable principle the need to keep everything and all the books on the same site.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied that all library opinion is against the Government in this matter. The Library Association, which he naturally knows, and which is the professional institute of librarians in this country, has sent a statement to me in which it independently came to much the same

broad conclusions as the Government. I would read two brief quotations from this statement.
First:
It is the Association's opinion that the functions of a national library are in no way cognate to those of a national museum and that the Library should finally be established as a separate entity, divorced entirely from the British Museum, and with its own board of trustees or governors.
Second:
The question of the best allocation of responsibility and the best administrative machinery for the operation of all national, reference, lending and bibliographical services should be independently investigated "—
which is exactly what I am proposing that the Committee which I will set up shall do, and I hope that Conservatives will ponder these words.
These are our own librarians. These opinions are as important as those of the other organisations. We all know how wires and telegrams from abroad can be so easily organised in the little closed Establishment circle, but these are our own librarians and I hope that the Conservatives will not go on assuming that they are speaking for librarians as a whole in this repetitive return to this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about lack of consultation with the Trustees. I have looked again at all the documents and I still maintain that there was adequate and proper consultation. I spoke at some length in the debate thirteen days ago, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear because he was not present, but which he may have read. The essential fact is that the Trustees' case was put as strongly to us as it was possible to put it. In all the long discussions which ensued, including tonight's, not a single argument or point has been added to those so ably set forth in the memorandum sent by Lord Radcliffe to my predecessor. So it could not have been improved upon, but my predecessor, I and my colleagues considered it with all the care that it clearly merited.
Conservatives are extremely selective in their idea of what constitutes "consultation". After dilly-dallying about from 1955 to 1964—for nine years—the Conservative Government then announced what hon. Members opposite now claim was a firm decision. But this so-called


decision was heavily qualified. It was declared to be
subject to consultation with the many interested authorities including the housing and planning authorities".
It is true that the statement went on to add that
the Ministry will now proceed to consult with these authorities with a view to working out ways and means of implementing the scheme".
But the sentence that I have just quoted was governed by the words at the beginning "subject to consultation", and I can find no other meaning in those words than that the decision was dependent upon consultation. I do not know what "subject to" means, otherwise. That is why I described the decision as a non-decision. But in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said tonight, perhaps I was too generous in my interpretation.
Let me concede to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are two possible interpretations of the rather twisted and ambiguous formula in which he conveyed his decision. There is mine, which seems to be the most charitable one, and that is that when he said "consultation" he meant "consultation". Then there is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own interpretation, which amounts to the admission that the whole thing was deceptive double talk intended to lull and mislead the interests referred to—the housing and planning authorities.
I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that he would take any objections and representations seriously. He is now telling us that he meant no such thing at all. He had already in his heart, though not in his mouth or through his pen, already resolved to sweep any such objections aside. The only interpretations of the decision of 1964 are either that it was a non-decision or that it was deceptive double-talk—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends can make their choice.
In 1966 the meaning of the words "subject to consultations" became a very real question when Camden made formal objections to the plan. The right hon. and learned Member now tells us, in effect, that he would have swept this aside—because, whatever he said, he had already made up his mind. We took

his commitment to consult seriously. The destruction of 900 homes and the obliteration of one of the most dignified and historical areas of London seemed to us a very important matter, which weighed with us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a letter to The Times by Mr. Roy Shaw, Chairman of the Camden Planning and Development Committee. I think that he must have been unaware of what this gentleman is reported in The Times of 27th October, the day after my first statement, to have said, which was:
We are delighted with the Government's decision. We have always been opposed to any encroachment on the comparatively scarce residential accommodation in Central London. The British Museum scheme would have meant 900 people losing their homes. Now we hope they can stay where they are.
I know that Mr. Roy Shaw's first thoughts represent better than his second thoughts the views of the Camden Borough Council. We had these formally sent to us in writing.

Mr. Rippon: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has really made my point? Whatever views the Camden Borough Council may have about the scheme as a whole, we know that it welcomed the decision. Mr. Roy Shaw's letter makes clear that it realised the point to which consultations were limited.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I do not think it does. I think that there is a flat contradiction between what Mr. Shaw said as reported in The Times and the letter which, for some reason, he wrote a little later to The Times.
The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is that I made it clear in my statement and, therefore, did not think it necessary to repeat it, that we have upheld the objections of the Borough of Camden. This is a decision that we have taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bloomsbury scheme is, therefore, at an end. He asked me to make it clear. He said that I had not made it clear. I made it clear right at the beginning, but perhaps there have been so many debates and discussions about this that he has not kept up with it all.
The Camden objections were not the only factor affecting our decision. There is a bigger one, the great question of the


organisation of our national libraries. Throughout the whole time the Conservatives had responsibility this question never even seems to have entered their minds. It is ignored altogether in their Motion of censure. It apparently still escapes them that our national libraries are in a very confused and overlapping state, that they are unco-ordinated, that there is very great confusion between them as to functions and that this is becoming an expensive thing. I find that I have no way now of deciding what is an appropriate total amount of money to be spent on the national libraries or how it should be distributed between them.
It is absolutely essential in the interests of readers and of taxpayers that we bring order and unity into our national library system—thereby creating a new coordinated system, using the most modern techniques, that can serve us infinitely better than the present rather chaotic system—if "system" is the right word for it—which we inherited from the Conservatives.
Our main national library ought, I am convinced, to be in Central London. A great many of the arguments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman directed to the point would disappear if it is in Central London, as it ought to be. A great many of his arguments assumed that it would be in Glasgow or somewhere. We need advice. We need advice about how many books should be stocked in the library and how far books can by modern techniques be made quickly available between the national libraries and between these and, for instance, our great university libraries.
Modern techniques with one exception —in the science library—are really not being used at all in our library system—the use of closed-circuit television, teleprint and conveyor belts and all the devices that can be used nowadays to speed up the working of libraries and the movement of books between them. It was to get answers to these questions that the Government decided to set up an independent committee. We need a quick, independent survey to advise about the whole structure of our national libraries, including the place of the British Museum Library within it.
I am very glad to be able to tell the House that Dr. F. S. Dainton, Vice-

Chancellor of Nottingham University, has agreed to act as the chairman of the committee. We are indeed fortunate that we can call on his services. I shall shortly be discussing with him the names of a small number of other people who will make up the committee. There will be no delay. Dr. Dainton fully realises the need for speed.
When we are talking about delay, we must remember what we are measuring it against. It should not be forgotten that under the regional Bloomsbury scheme no one expected the extension to be completed until the 1980s. It is against this that we have to measure when people talk about delay. From what has been said one would think that the whole thing would be built in a couple of years. The plan was tentative and hopeful that it would be completed in the 1980s. So I hope that we can keep that timetable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot pretend that there was a rapid, wonderful scheme going ahead and that we are holding it up.
The Government's aim is a fine new library of which we can be proud and which will rival the great national libraries of other countries, and I want to see it as part of a new national library system that will be the envy of the world.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Brian Batsford: I listened with care to the Secretary of State, but I regret to say that I was not impressed by his arguments. He pointed out that we debated this subject on 3rd November last. He may remember that I took part in that debate, although I did not speak on this issue. There is, therefore, no question of my repeating myself tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the subject of consultation. Reference was made in that earlier debate to the degree of consultation with the Greater London Council before he made his decision about the British Museum Library; and I wish to confine my remarks to that subject.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) reminded us, the Bloomsbury site was designated in the initial development plan, as it is called, as long ago as 1955. The G.L.C. is, therefore, obviously still responsible for that plan until it is superseded by the Greater London development


plan, on which the G.L.C. is now working and which will be submitted to die Minister of Housing and Local Government at the end of 1968. The G.L.C. is, therefore, clearly involved and vitally concerned if a major adjustment to the plan is made. Nevertheless, the G.L.C. was not consulted by the right hon. Gentleman before he made his recent drastic decision.
When the G.L.C. originally considered the actual form of the proposed Library—almost exactly a year ago, on 1st December, 1966—it had a number of important reservations. I admit that it had strong reservations about the historic buildings aspect, but it had stronger reservations still about through traffic.
On the historic buildings side, it was prepared to waive its objections in view of the scale and importance of the proposal; the Sir Leslie Martin design. The words used in the Report to the Planning Committee were:
The proposed scheme constitutes a major example of urban and architectural design on a grand scale for which opportunities seldom occure in such an important part of Central London".
In terms of civic design, the scheme was welcomed as a major contribution to the fabric of London.
The G.L.C.'s main reservations, on the other hand, were made on the grounds of through traffic, and certain amendments were suggested. For example, the G.L.C. did not like the idea that Great Russell Street should be abolished and it suggested, as a possible amendment, that there should be a through route, but below ground level. Even in this important traffic sphere, however, it took a wider view and stated, in the Report:
A way must be found of resolving the traffic problems without damaging the basic design and architectural conception. Otherwise this opportunity for achieving a contribution of outstanding merit to the urban scene in this part of London will be lost.
It is clear, therefore, that whatever reservations the G.L.C. had, at the same time, it had no wish whatever to reject the scheme as a whole. In fact, the G.L.C. assumed—indeed hoped—that, with modifications, the scheme would go ahead.
That was the situation a year ago. In January of this year a letter was written by the Council to the Minister of Public

Building and Works emphasising that the Council did not object to the scheme on historic buildings grounds, but suggested that they might again discuss further aspects of the traffic problem and that these discussions might take place not only with the Minister of Public Building and Works, but also with the Camden Borough Council.
That was in January, and, since then, nothing whatever has been heard from the Minister of Public Building and Works. I understand that the only thing that has happened since is that a few tentative inquiries at officer level have been made about the possibility of alternative sites. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will claim that there is no requirement on a Government Department to consult a local planning authority in a decision of this sort, but surely the G.L.C. should have been consulted before abandoning the scheme altogether—and abandoning also a scheme which the Government and the L.C.C., as it then was, and the G.L.C., as it now is, had been firmly committed for a number of years.
I conclude on a personal note as one who has used the British Museum Library for many years. The right hon. Gentleman asked who were to speak for librarians.
I also speak tonight as a bookseller who started nearly 40 years ago in that part of London which is in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). I speak also as a publisher. I have always visualised this great new Library on a site in close proximity to the British Museum. I see the argument not so much for having it close to the antiquities but much more, as my right hon. Friend said, as a part of a great university concept. People do not always realise nowadays that with the idea of keeping universities together as a complex to save too much travelling terraces of preserved houses in different parts of London are being given up so that this result can be achieved.
I therefore very much regret, for that reason alone, that this decision should have been arrived at. I am sorry, also, that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to change it and go back on his decision, because I think that it might very much have enhanced his reputation


had he done so. If he still persists in looking for an alternative site I can only hope that on this occasion he will consult the Greater London Council before making his selection. I venture to suggest that the G.L.C. will have very strong views on the subject.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I could hardly have had a better setting for my final speech in this House than a debate—and on a subject like this it would be improper to refer to the number of hon. Members present, because that might result in further delay—in which two vastly important subjects have been under discussion with virtually no back benchers permitted to take any real part at all. The debate on approved schools commenced at 4.18, and finished half an hour late. I think that three back benchers spoke briefly, in a brief intermission between announcements from the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend has now made what he called a brief intervention, and I hope that the final one will be slightly briefer—

Mr. Gordon Walker: indicated assent.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, because I have to consider other hon. Members who have a better right than I to speak.
I wanted to speak as just an ordinary bloke who uses the British Museum; who sits in the Reading Room. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for demolishing some of the dafter arguments that have been put in opposition. No one has put forward the vital arguments, which do not affect the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) or her constituency. I used to live in Bloomsbury, and the Prime Minister—the present Prime Minister, not the previous one—used to call at my flat on his way down from Hampstead. I can well understand her problems in Holborn, which are not very much different from those in Oldham, where we are building 1,200 houses a year and rebuilding the town. We can do that without stopping the establishment somewhere of a great new building of national learning which is vital for every purpose.
With respect to my right hon. Friend, it is no argument to say that the Tories

did not do anything. The point is that we said, whether it was truthful or not that the Tories did not do anything, that when we came to power we would do something. The thing to do is not to stop a plan that has been going on for 25 years. I fought my first election in 1929 on a programme of Keynesian expansionism, as a Liberal—building roads all over the country and finding work for the unemployed. That was duly denounced by the Parliamentary Labour Party of those days, and we are now beginning to build those roads inch by inch at twenty times the cost.
At that time a report had been made that the British Museum Reading Room was inadequate, needed expansion and could not supply the needs. The needs have not grown arithmetically, but algebraically. Of course it is convenient to have it next door to the University of London, but what the hell has that to do with it? It could be next door to the University of Manchester which has fewer privileges than London. I am not putting the Metropolitan argument—I am sick of the Metropolitan argument. A gentleman has written to The Times saying "I can pop in after my meeting for a quarter of an hour". That is exactly what was said of the brothels of Paris in the days when I was in that city years ago, and when I was pressed to visit one which claimed to be patronised by his late Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII.
I have to talk to my right hon. Friend rather firmly. He enjoys a considerable measure of respect and esteem in this House; I cannot understand why, except that he is a very nice fellow, undoubtedly learned and very popular. The last time we had an argument in this House was a long time ago. We do not often have an argument now. He said that we had a kgotla. We had a pow-wow and this was the result of a careful pow-wow. Has he had a palaver with Lord Radcliffe? Lord Radcliffe says that he has pneumonia and perhaps he is less forceful than he otherwise would have been. I am getting in a poor way myself.
Lord Radcliffe pushes a button, which is important, but he does not push very hard. He puts to my right hon. Friend that he has not got the services of a sufficient number of people of learning adequately to advise on this decision. If


the answer is "yes" then we should not have them as they are wasting their time there. They should be in the service of those institutes of learning which have not the staff they need. If we have not the services of those people, my right hon Friend is not competent to decide this matter.
The last thing I should like, this perhaps is my somewhat eccentric way of doing things, is to suggest that this is not a problem of vital importance. Whenever we get learned people putting a case they make a mess of it. I found it much more convenient to defend criminals than intellectual professors. We have watched the correspondence in The Times and, apart from Lord Radcliffe, someone said why should be not have the Bibliothèque Nationale at Ivry-sur-Seine? The Bibliothèque Nationale is housed in a building of historic importance. The chap who built it lost playing picquet with Cardinal Mazarin. Anyone who played picquet with Cardinal Mazarin deserved to be cheated.
I have had the privilege in the last six or seven weeks of spending a couple of weeks at the British Museum and a couple of weeks at Bibliothèque Nationale and another week or two at the Institut et Musée Voltaire in the City of Geneva. There there is the creation of a distinguished Englishman, one of the greatest living bibliographers. He has created an exceptionally small library, but one where one can sit in peace and comfort and study the whole of the 18th century in graphs and books which have been selected with special care and are available to be read in perfect conditions for study. When one sees a small but select institute like that, the case for the National Library becomes overwhelming.
Theodore Besterman, who edited the 107 volumes of Voltaire's letters beautifully annotated, is an Englishman who is respected anywhere. It is hardly necessary for me to say that, it is almost insulting for me to say it. These volumes deal with the life of a man who lived from 1696 to 1778 and when one reads his correspondence with Tsarskoe-Selo and Potsdam one is really studying a century. I have been attempting myself to write a book. I do not suppose it will ever be published. It is a work of biography of someone who is almost completely for

gotten. I do not object to travel. Of course one has to travel. It is a futile argument to say that you can get everything together in Paris rich in all its museums. If one wants to study Toulouse-Lautrec one has to go to Albi. The fellow who talked about the Bibliothèque Nationale at Ivry-sur-Seine had forgotten about the great archives—the Archives Nationale—in the Hotel de Soubise. The last owner is the man who is depicted on the battlefield of Rossbach looking for his troops and saying, "Where are they? They were here yesterday morning", which is the sort of thing which can happen to political leaders nowadays.
When I was at this wonderful library in Geneva, I found that in 1740 M. Perronet had embarked upon a great reforming highway programme. Then there was an economic crisis. The economic crisis was Madame de Pompadour. To be fair to Louis XV, his liaison with Madame lasted and proved much more durable and much less expensive than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's liaison with President Johnson.
I found something in Voltaire about Swiss bankers which I think is interesting—not wholly 18th century, but relevant. Voltaire said, "If you see a Swiss banker jump through a plate glass window, jump after him at once. There is 10 per cent. in it". That is one we shall do well to remember.
The real case is this. A national library is as essential to us as any part of our great heritage. It must be a national library. The objection to Colin-dale is not that it is Colindale half an hour from London. It is that it is half an hour from the rest of the Library were the tools are—and you cannot repair the blooming pipes in Colindale if you have left your plumber's equipment at the British Museum.
I am inclined to agree that the argument for the British Museum being in London is overwhelming, with 1½ million visitors. The argument for the Library being connected with the Museum applies with great force in certain limited but important departments of research such as archaeology, palaeontology, and so on. However, it would be absurd to put that as an argument which would be wholly decisive. It should be weighed in the balance.
My right hon. Friend's assurances are more reassuring coming from him than some statements from the Front Bench. The argument is that the decision cannot be held up any longer. If a decision is taken, it must be in favour of a great national library, following upon what has been done elsewhere. We are told that there are plans in Paris. There have been plans in London for a long time. Czechoslovakia has established a national library. The gentleman who wrote to The Times saying: should the Library of Congress be in Richmond, Virginia, could have talked a damnsight more sense if he had asked why Congress was in the worst-governed town in the United States. The Library of Congress is not only a national library, though there is an immense library there. The national library spreads over this great country.
Let me say a few words about the management of the British Museum, in case I should get diverted from the subject. They have worked under terrible conditions for a long time. They have laboured under a dreadful handicap for a long time. This Parliament passes wonderful Bills about nice offices for nice people, but the conditions under which our own staff work are deplorable. Our own reference library, with its wonderful and helpful staff, was unable the other day to find me a New Testament—not that I wanted to read it—I wanted to administer the oath as a Commissioner.
The most bitter internecine strife in the Labour Party in the pre-Wilson era was over the question whether we should move an open coal fire in favour of converting it into a reference library. I cannot remember which side my right hon. Friend was on in that dispute. We are told that some elderly Welsh Members sat round this fire warming their knees, talking of the Eisteddfod and the Mabinogion, that this went on for an incredible number of years and that they almost established a right by prescription. This battle was fought with some vigour. This was not an occasion when people said, "We are going to vote for you tonight but do not do it again." They were not going to vote at all.
The management of the British Museum has issued at this very difficult time a magnificent 250 volume index. How they have done it, I do not know. I am told that the Library of Congress is

still working on one which is going to cost £3,500. The Bibliothèque Nationale started an index in 1898 and has not finished it yet. The lack of a dictionary of national biography in France is an absolute tragedy. A powerful committee started to produce one in 1933. The first volume was published in 1933 and they are getting through to the letter "D" at the moment. We in this country have much to be proud of.
I do not wish to emphasise too much the use of microfilms. There is a Parliamentary precedent when we introduced a cure for animals in Africa which was announced six years before it was ready, and, although people may agree that the development of microfilms is a vital matter, it is premature to make extravagant claims in view of the present cost. I understand that the Ministry of Technology spent a sum of £31,000 at Hatfield for the development of and investigation into micrography for the reproduction and distribution of books. In America already this is an industry with a £100 million turnover while we, as part of our programme of development, are spending £31,000.
I am looking at the clock with regret and with apologies to my hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Perhaps I could take a few more minutes. I have it in mind that in four or five weeks' time Her Gracious Majesty will entrust me with the temporary custodianship of the venerable Hundreds of the Chilterns. Then I shall leave this Palace of Westminster, never to return—not because my memories of this place are not pleasing. I treasure friendships I have been honoured within this assembly and the generosity I have received. I shall prefer not to await my old friends in the queue to the cafeteria. I am going.
In those circumstances, I feel that I might arrogate to myself tonight the privilege, having no longer any axe to grind, of not merely paying my last respects to the Chair, still the symbol of democracy throughout the world, but of conveying to its present distinguished occupant my thanks for great generosity to me and my rejoicing that it is occupied by someone who is relied upon to have the cause of democracy at heart, when it is not quite so strong as it was in some parts of the world or even here, where there are talks of coalition.
It is strange that I come back to the period of the Pompadour. On a previous occasion I adapted an epitaph of Piron—Ci-dit Piron qui ne fut rien, pas même Academicien, as
Here lies Hale who was nothing or less He was lever even a P.P.S.
I have had almost every experience that a back bencher can have, as a member of a Royal Commission, a joint Committee of Lords and Commons, everything except an invitation to a Ministerial dinner or a free trip with C.P.A.
I have nothing to repine about. I go grateful to this House. I go quietly, almost treading tenderly, in the circumstances. I shall go with the satisfaction of knowing that I have had great friendships, stretching from my oldest friend from Northampton to Antrim South, glad that I have known and loved two Members for Ebbw Vale. I think, also, that I have had some esteem from the great people of Oldham.
I apologise for this somewhat over-personal conclusion to what was not intended to be an emotional speech. I am grateful to my hon. and right hon. Friends for giving me a moment or two over the odds, and I am grateful to the House.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The House has just listened to a most moving speech, which has been an example of the brilliance with which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has on many occasions, over many years, addressed the House with great wit, with great learning, at great speed, and usually on humanitarian matters which have moved the hearts of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides.
It is sad to learn that we have listened today to his last speech in the assembly. That will be a matter of great regret to everyone. All right hon. and hon. Members will thank my hon. Friend for the contributions which he has made over the years to our debates, for his brilliance and often out of order interjections, and will wish him in his retirement long life, peace and many happy recollections of the time which he spent so successfully in this assembly.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Strauss: As usual, my hon. Friend has been right in the cause which he has advocated. I, for one, agree with almost everything he said. I do not accept the argument advanced from the benches opposite that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been deficient in consultation with the trustees or anyone else before coming to his decision. There may have been misunderstanding, but that it should be elevated to a charge of discourtesy which justifies a Motion of censure on my right hon. Friend is ridiculous. I could not, therefore, possibly support the Motion.
When one comes to the question of the siting of the British Museum, however, my sympathies are fully in accord with those who question my right hon. Friend's decision. I regard it as deplorable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West pointed out, work on this project has gone on for years. It has featured in a large number of planning decisions by the London County Council and Greater London Council and other bodies. It has been generally supported by the Government. After about 20 years of intensive work and study, the scheme has been brought to a very late stage of development. A large part of the area has been bought, and £2 million spent on it. A plan has been drawn up by two eminent architects for effecting this extension and building of a Library, which must meet with the approval of everyone who is interested in libraries and has any aesthetic sense.
One would expect there to be the most formidable and conclusive reasons before any Government would decide to annul all the work which has been done and reverse the decisions taken in the past. But the reasons which have been given by my hon. Friend for reversing these decisions seem to me exceedingly weak and inconclusive. My right hon. Friend told us why this great project is to be cancelled irretrievably in the speech he made in the House on 26th October. He gave his reasons clearly and I want to read them. They are all in one short paragraph, which says:
The London Borough of Camden, which is the local planning authority, subsequently made formal objections, and these have been under consideration. The Government, having regard particularly to the housing situation in the borough, and to the need to preserve


buildings of historic or architectural importance in Bloomsbury, have decided on balance that the borough's objections to the plan should be upheld."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 1904.]
My hon. Friend's main reason is to uphold the objections of the Camden Borough to the project, which are about housing. The council has made representations to the Ministry on two points. It says that it is concerned about the large degree of residential accommodation being taken up in Central London. That is a general point, and we all have sympathy with it, but we must remember that, wherever the project is to be located, if it is to be in Central London it will either take up existing or potential residential accommodation. The council has also told us, to quote from the second letter of Mr. Roy Shaw, the Chairman of the Camden Borough's Planning Committee, who, presumably, knows what he is talking about, that the borough council's objection lay in the fact that it was concerned to get "a larger degree of residential accommodation," which is to be taken up in the new plan.
We must look at this in proper perspective and assume that it is desirable to have some sort of big library development in the area, and that the project is aesthetically good and sound. What are the facts about the new accommodation which will be required if the plan is carried out? We are told that there are 900 people in the area. The new plan proposes good accommodation for 350, with parking facilities and so on. In other words, 550 people will have to be re-housed over, I suppose, a period of about 10 years. It is no doubt distressing to those people that they must be re-housed. Nobody likes being re-housed compulsorily, but if one looks at the matter in comparison with the rehousing work being done elsewhere, it is not a problem.
In my constituency, at Lambeth, the number of people rehoused each year is 3,000, whereas this is a problem of re-housing 550 people over 10 years. Therefore, if the project is sound, the housing obligation on the council, which can be shared with the Greater London Council, is not one which justifies turning it down. But that is the prime argument on which my right hon. Friend says he turned it down.
The second reason was the number of houses in the area of historic and architectural importance. I any many other hon. Members know the area very well. The number of houses of real historical and architectural importance in these seven acres is insignificant. The whole area is a mess. It is a dog's dinner, unpalatable on the whole, in which there are a few, but very few, houses of some interest. There are many houses of mediocre quality. There are many which are poor and miserable and which ought to have been pulled down years ago.
Whatever happens, this area must be developed in some way or another. To suggest that we must kill the scheme because a number of houses of importance, historically or achitecturally, are situated there is nonsense. The Greater London Council is quite willing that this area should be redeveloped for museum purposes, in spite of the fact that there are a few fairly interesting houses in it. There is only one house, and that not outstanding, in Bloomsbury Square which has any real merit.
When it went into the scheme, the Royal Fine Art Commission examined the suggestion that there were interesting buildings of artistic merit in the area, and it concluded there was only one, and that it would be wrong to keep that one in existence if it stood in the way of the building of such a fine project as that proposed by the architects, Sir Leslie Martin and Mr. St. John Wilson.
The Ròyal Fine Art Commission is quite happy to see the area go, and those who know it would be equally pleased. It seems to me that the case for cancelling the scheme, after all the work that has been done over 20 years, on the ground that there are houses of architectural importance does not stand the light of the day. But those are the arguments on which my right hon. Friend primarily bases his case for tearing up all the work which has been done on the project.
Another argument is the desirability of having a composite national library, a matter about which there is great argument. Some people believe that it would be better to have a British Museum Library close to the location of the British Museum. This is arguable. But the point which has not been settled at all —and as far as I know no consideration has been given to it—is that even if it is


agreed that there should be a composite library under one roof, why should it not be in this area, either within the seven acres that have been designated or in a larger area? The committee which my right hon. Friend has set up might well decide that it is desirable to have a composite national library. But need it all be located at the same spot? It might be in various parts of London. A British Museum Library in this area could be a central element of the new set-up.
My right hon. Friend has set up this committee which will consider the matter. He said that it should not take more than six months or a year. In the meantime, he is stopping the present proposals irretrievably. He does not say, "We have waited for a long time. It will be some years before the scheme is completed. Let us wait for six or 12 months and see what the new committee proposes". That committee may well propose that it is essential that this site be developed as the British Museum Library or as part of some composite arrangement. Will the committee be able to reach such a decision under the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend will give it? If it comes to such a conclusion will he then reverse the decision which he has taken, irretrievably to stop the building of the project in this area?
It seems to me that to make such an important decision after all these years of work, and when such a magnificent scheme has been worked out by these two eminent architects, is unfortunate. I do not know how many hon. Members have seen the scheme. It is a magnificent design, gracious and efficient. It wholly serves the purpose required and will greatly beautify that part of London. To stop all that now while the inquiry into what sort of national library we want in future is going on is a grave mistake.
It is arguable that it is desirable to have the British Museum Library next door to the Museum. Prima facie the case is strong—I put it no higher. But there is also a strong case for saying that this Library should be close to London University. It is an important part of the work of the University and I, as perhaps were some other hon. Members, was impressed by the argument

put forward by the Professor of Ancient History at the University, Professor Momigliano in a letter to The Times on 7th November.
As others wish to speak I will quote only a few sentences:
The B.M. library is to the University of London what Bodley is to the University of Oxford. If the B.M. library goes, the teachers of the University of London, who have simply not the time to travel far from their colleges, will increasingly rely on specialised libraries. Specialised libraries, taken alone, are the death of true scholarship.
He made a strong plea in the interests of scholarship and of the University for maintaining this library on the proposed site. Surely, then, there is a strong case for having the library on this site, bearing in mind that it may be able to house many more books than at present envisaged and be completely suitable for a national library.
My right hon. Friend has come to his decision. I think that he has been ill-advised. As a result of this decision, London will be deprived of a magnificent piece of large scale planning, equally outstanding in its efficiency and beauty. The result of years of fruitful and successful hard work will have been scrapped.
I think that this is a case of not seeing the wood for the trees. My right hon. Friend has been impressed by some arguments, in my opinion weak ones. Because he does not like some of the trees, he says that the whole forest must come down. Without any idea of what is to take its place, it has to be destroyed. I fear that this decision will prove scholastically wrong and I am certain that it will be a blow to London which future generations will deeply regret.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: There are two separate issues in this debate. One is the need for a National Library and the other is the Conservative Party's desire to hound personally the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who happens to have made this decision. I have no intention of covering the second point. I am not particularly concerned about the second part of the Motion, either.
I do not suppose that, however much consultation had taken place, members of


the Establishment would ever feel satisfied. One of the purposes, I believe, of the other place is to ensure in our constitution a place where members of the Establishment can feel that they are being involved in government when they are not.
I support the first part of the Motion, however, and shall vote against the Government. But I have one reservation. The Motion laughingly refers to a Government decision, but I do not believe that any decision has been taken. One of the more disastrous things in this country is our belief that the setting up of a committee is a decision. I do not believe that in this case any one has made any decision at all.
I want to echo the words of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) concerning what happens if this new committee comes to the same decision that the other committee which considered this issue for four years reached. This was the committee set up by the U.G.C. and it said that "the British Museum should become the national library".
The Conservative case in this debate has been based largely on whether the decision of the Conservative Government to go ahead with this scheme was a firm decision. Let me hasten to say, from my position, that the fact that it was a decision of a Conservative Government would not necessarily lead me to support it, nor indeed to consider that it was right. After all, one of the things which led me to conclude that the Stansted decision was wrong was the fact that it had originally been made by a Conservative Government.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough): That is prejudice.

Mr. Pardoe: The whole history of the British Museum in the past 20 years has been a total shambles and it is against that shambles that I am voting tonight—the failure of the Government to put that right and do something.
If the present site is the right one, and there are very strong arguments for saying that this is so, why have the Government not had the guts to go ahead and build on it? If they feel that questions of housing versus books arise, if they feel that the questions of architecture are

overwhelming, why have they not done what the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to do, and that is to go ahead with a National Library elsewhere in London? I see no reason why we need another committee to tell us all this.
One of the things that amazes me, looking at the record of the actions of successive Governments over the British Museum ever since the war, is the extraordinary delays that have occurred. It is said that a firm decision was reached in 1955 to carry out this plan, yet the architects were not appointed until 1962 and the Government did not approve the scheme, even in principle, until 1964. What happened in the intervening period? Why was nothing done to get on with the job then?
We have had even more delays recently, and it is extraordinary that, since this Government came into power they have authorised the expenditure of more than £500,000 on land for this project, yet now, after this period of time, and this expenditure of money, they have failed to carry the project through. It is very difficult to isolate this decision from what I regard as the appalling absence of any policy for the proper investment in public patronage of the arts generally. We spend vast amounts of money on the British Museum, nearly £4 million a year. We spend very considerable sums of money on other galleries and museums elsewhere, and yet Parliament very rarely considers what sort of value for money we are getting.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that there was no alternative site in London that could be developed as a library without rehousing and all the other attendant problems. I would suggest that there is one obvious site for an extension of the British Museum, if not a Library, and that is the one in which we are now sitting. It might be very much easier to use this present building for an extension of the British Museum. We might even leave a few relics around behind us when we go.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he wants to build a new National Library in London, but I do not see that it requires another committee to tell us whether or how this should be done. If the decision has been made to do it, then


for heaven's sake let us get on with it. This has been waiting around for 20 years or more, and I look to the Government to carry out their promise which they have made tonight without any further delays.

9.20 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I think that we must try to apply our minds to what this argument is about. The way in which some of the sudden bibliophiles on the opposite benches are approaching the matter seems to suggest that the argument is between having a great National Library, and not having one. I dissociate myself from that attitude.
One reason why I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, and I shall not give him any peace until he proves me right, is that I believe we will get a finer, more splendid, and more worthy National Library than was envisaged, and, with no respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), a building of infinitely more gracious and pleasing design than the ugly great yard with which we have been presented so far.
I am convinced that we can get the new building more quickly. Successive Ministers have said that the previous building was to begin in the 'seventies, and was expected to be completed in the 'eighties. This is an unforgivable delay, and I am convinced that, given the support of the House, my right hon. Friend can see that we gain time by this change of plan.
I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), for whom I have a great respect, and sometimes a little more than respect. I do not see this argument in terms of books versus houses. I am not a complete stranger to books. I think that this is a completely false presentation of the argument.
I think that I must deal with one or two specific points which have been made. Too much has been said about the virtue of what I can only call the aggregation of books and museum objects. I believe that the civilised world must share the evidence of its culture throughout many lands, towns, and places. I cannot understand this megalomania about London. I would much prefer to see the House revis-

ing the statutes governing the British Museum, to enable some of the lovely treasures which at the moment are hidden away to be sent to provincial museums where they would be a delight to many people.
We have heard a good deal about the inconvenience which may be caused to people who may have to travel away from Central London if the Library and the Museum are separated. Many people in our great provincial cities have to come to London to look at the treasures stored here. I would not care if the Elgin Marbles went back to Greece. I would welcome this. I see no virtue in amassing the treasures of a museum and library in one place.
Reference has been made to the part played by London University. I must remind the House that only a few of the colleges of the University are in this area. Some of the colleges are in South Kensington, and there is even one at Wye, quite a long way off. It might even be a good idea to site the new National Library in South Kensington—[Interruption.] I am talking about dispersal. I would like to see some of the unseen treasures stored in the British Museum sent to provincial museums. This is not for tonight's argument, but it is an important point.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall dealt rather cavalierly with the housing problem. There are slightly more than 900 private residents living in flats in this area, and the population increases naturally, even in Holborn. There are 350 young women living in a Y.W.C.A. hostel which has a long waiting list. There are several small and modest hotels in which many of those who come to read in the British Museum and to study briefly in London often find accommodation. I was amused at this morning's letter in The Times from a number of librarians who suggested that it was convenient for them to be able to walk from one library to another. Many scholars who come to London are more concerned with being able to walk to the Library from where they are staying. One reads of Virginia Woolf walking from Mecklenburg Square to the British Museum and of Eleanor Marx living in Great Russell Street and just crossing the road to the Museum.
However, if this scheme goes through, we shall push residential accommodation further from the centre of London and make it more difficult for the scholars, whose case has been so eloquently pleaded, to find anywhere to stay when they come to London to read the Library's books. After all, there are very few scholars so devoted that they would put books before bed.
Several hon. Members have referred to the element of rehousing in the Martin plan. There is no evidence to suggest that the people who lose their homes as a result of the scheme will be the same people who are able to afford the rents of the new flats or who will find them suitable in the light of their family and other circumstances. If hon. Members are so anxious to see the Borough of Camden house an extra 900 people on top of its existing commitments, I suggest that we get special authority to pull down some of the hideous slums which are a terrible disgrace to the centre of of our great city. The people living there are those who should be rehoused if there is any spare element of rehousing to be undertaken.
My right hon. Friend described the area very unkindly as a mess. One of the reasons why this part of Bloomsbury is such a mess is because of the long years of uncertainty. Time after time, people have been told that properties are on very short leases. They have been able to get very little information about the future and, of course, the area has become run down. My constituents have not even known whether to buy new curtains or put new lino on their kitchen floors because of the uncertainty. Nothing is worse for an area, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is run down. However, one ought to look at the causes, and the sooner that it is retrieved, the better.
One of the difficulties is that, of the area as a whole, no one would say that local or parochial reasons should take precedence over important national ones, and I would be the last. The trouble with this scheme is that it is one of many which have been planned for one small area of London. We have lost 73 acres for the University precinct alone, and, in the present case, it was suggested that we should lose another seven. We have

lost much living space for hospital extensions and, unfortunately, especially when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge, we have lost acres of land for office building at a vast profit to the developers concerned.
We should be able to agree that there is no virtue in the continuing depopulation of the centres of our great cities. At the beginning of the century, 59,000 people lived in Holborn. By 1951 it had dropped to 24,000, and we are now down to 20,000. It is bad for everyone, both residents and visitors, if we tend to get dead institutional areas in the centres of our cities. I want to see the centre of London more densely populated. It is a splendid place in which to live.
Of course, one of the troubles with this scheme is that it is one of a long list. It is all very well to say that it is important and to consider it separately, but already nearly 1,500 people have been displaced from their homes for university development in this area alone, over 800 for hospital extensions; and many other schemes, some of national and some not of national importance, have involved many thousands of people in the area losing their homes.
Considering many of these schemes separately, one sees that the Hospital for Sick Children, for example, has a good case for turning people out of their houses in Great Ormond Street, because its work is important and it must expand. Of course, others are told that they must move out of Woburn Square, because a computer is to go there. None of these projects in itself is to be criticised, but, if planning means anything, it means that someone at some point must do some arithmetic and add the cumulative effect in one small part of London to a succession of decisions which might be right in themselves but which are cumulatively bad for planning and, above all, for people.
The Camden Borough Council has a housing waiting list of 9,000 people, many in desperate conditions, and it is in that light that further consideration needs to be given to the area's housing situation. Last night, the council, supported by Mr. Roy Shaw, who was one of the signatories, passed by 24 votes to 6 the following resolution:
This Camden Borough Council, concerned with the welfare of the inhabitants of the area,


welcomes the decision of the Secretary of State.. The Council reiterates its policy of opposition to the continuing encroachment on residential accommodation in Central London and urges H.M. Government to give practical support towards that policy. It further urges that in the interest of the cultural life of the country a speedy solution to the problem of the National Library may be found which will provide adequate and convenient facilities for an efficient library service.
It is in the spirit of that resolution that the whole House should consider this question.
Of course, other sites are being talked about—for instance, Covent Garden, railway land behind St. Pancras Station, the station itself, the South Bank. I am sure that this question will not be insuperably difficult. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated because his decision has been the catalyst which I am sure will enable a fresh decision to be made in the wider interests of scholarship and of the people not only of Camden, but of the whole of London and beyond.

9.34 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: May I tell the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) that I have been called many things in my life but I do not believe that many people who visit me at home would expect to hear me called a sudden bibliophile.
One feature of this debate is that we have had the opportunity to hear the swan song of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Like many speeches which we have heard from him in the House, the hon. Member's speech tonight was in turn moving and racy. If I may say so, I think that I shall best remember the hon. Member for Oldham, West for the most brilliant point of order that I have ever heard raised. It was many years ago and it concerned the ci-prés doctrine and a number of other doctrines less familiar to us. The Leader of the House, who is present, may recall that occasion.
I am sure that we wish to assure the hon. Member for Oldham, West that his warm feelings both for the House and for democracy are entirely reciprocated by the warmth of hon. Members in all parts of the House to him. Few speeches can have been heard with more enjoyment or with deeper or more genuine regret than his speech tonight.
I pass to the subject of the Motion. The Secretary of State commented on the fact that this was the second debate on this subject in 13 days. The Opposition make no apology for that. It is a common form in the House that one raises a topic on a day of general debate when there will be no Division, and if the Opposition are dissatisfied with the answer which they receive from the Government, they feel that they ought to return to it at the first available opportunity. That is exactly what we have done tonight. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that our motives were hounding the right hon. Gentleman, but I am very well aware that the right hon. Gentleman's capacity for self- punishment is greater than any punishment that we shall ever be able to inflict upon him. I still have one or two other topics which I could mention, for example his remarkable intervention with the teachers recently without consulting the local authorities. No doubt we can refer to that on a more convenient occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman tonight made one comment which strikes me as quite extraordinary. He said that there is no rational argument for keeping the British Museum and the Library together. On the subject of siting, we absolutely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about that, and our point of view was most convincingly supported by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who spoke, as he always does, in a moderate and persuasive manner, but whose speech was the most damaging criticism of the Government which I have so far heard on this subject from either side of the House.
I will put two points to the Secretary of State. First, we believe, as does the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, that there is a very strong argument indeed for the specialist collections in the British Museum maintaining a physically close relationship with the department of printed books. I have been struck in recent weeks by the number of people distinguished in academic life who have got in touch with me and urged precisely that point.
There are two reasons why this physically close relationship is important. The first is the point made by Lord Radcliffe in his memorandum of 25th July. Lord Radcliffe said,


The internal economy of the Museum itself would be much disturbed if the new Library building were not in close proximity to the Antiquities departments; you cannot run such departments, with their galleries, exhibitions, students' and research rooms and their learned publications without departmental libraries to support their scholarship. Hitherto we have been able to economise on departmental libraries by having ready and immediate resort to the collections of the Museum Library itself. If this resort is made impossible by a substantial separation of the Library site from the existing site of the Antiquities departments, it would be absolutely necessary to ask for very considerable additional expenditure for the enlargement of each departmental library.
I believe that Lord Radcliffe has made an overwhelming case for the present arrangement and that any other arrangement would involve very serious waste and duplication. But there is a second point which I made in the debate last Friday and which I repeat tonight because it is one in particular which scholars have raised with me and it is about languages. Very few of the specialist libraries can meet all their language needs when it comes to such needs as Iron Curtain languages or Oriental languages because there are not enough specialists to go round. That is a perfectly rational argument for wanting to maintain this physically close relationship between the Library and the Museum.
But there is, of course, a second reason which was mentioned to us very persuasively by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. The Minister quoted from a letter by Professor Momigliano to The Times and reminded us of the great importance of this subject to the University of London; that one forgets too easily that the Museum is the place where the teachers and students of the University of London find their material. The connection between the University and the Library in the Bloomsbury area has indeed been a close one.
I repeat that there is no question tonight of our indulging in criticism for criticism's sake, still less any question of concentrating any personal fire on the Minister. We took this step of tabling a Motion criticising the Government's decision on siting because we believe that it is a bad decision for London, a bad decision for Museum readers and a bad decision for scholarship. Despite all the

right hon. Gentleman's protestations the other week—that he was concerned with scholarship and was anxious to have excellence in education—his speech tonight showed little concern for the interests of scholarship in connection with this subject.
Not only was I surprised at his speech. I was all the more surprised when he suddenly indicated to me that whereas, during the first half of this evening, he had thought of asking leave to intervene again to address the House, he does not now propose to do so.
In putting this matter to the right hon. Gentleman I trust that he will deal with it adequately because he must come clean with the House about his alternative proposal. When we debated this subject on 3rd November last the right hon. Gentleman committed himself by saying:
I myself think that there is a strong case for having our great national library in Central London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 509.]
Tonight he went a stage further and gave a sort of oblique intimation that the Library would be in Central London. Indeed, he referred to the possibility of the Library being there—"as it should be", being the words he used. I must press the right hon. Gentleman to come clean and tell the House that, in his opinion, this great national library not merely has a strong case for being in Central London, or should be in Central London, but will be in Central London. Having said so much, and having said just notably more tonight than he said the other week, he must now come clean with the House before this debate comes to an end. He must make it quite clear to the House and the Trustees whether or not he was intending to enter into a moral commitment.
Government by intimation in that sort of way is the wrong way to treat the House. Either one is making a statement or one is not. To give a series of intimations, one a little more definite than the last, is not the way to treat Parliament on a subject of this importance.
The Minister referred to his success in obtaining Dr. Dainton as chairman of his new independent committee. All of us with knowledge of university affairs have the greatest possible respect for


Dr. Dainton, who is one of the ablest vice-chancellors of the post-war period. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that it seems most extraordinary to set up a new independent committee with the best possible chairman the right hon. Gentleman can secure and, at the same time, to say that the present proposals are being irretrievably stopped.
I put this direct question to the Minister, in the same way that it was asked by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall: supposing Dr. Dainton and his colleagues come to the view, in the course of their urgent examination, that the Bloomsbury plan was the best one, after all, will they be able to say so, and publicly? If not, it seems that their hands are being tied from the moment of their appointment.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and I believe that the arguments against the Bloomsbury site are extremely weak. The right hon. Gentleman made a telling point in comparing the numbers rehoused in his own borough of Lambeth each year with the numbers rehoused in Camden. Even now, I hope that the Government will reconsider this issue of siting; and, at the very least, that they will give this new Commission they are setting up a free hand to recommend what it believes to be right. Again I come back to this point: will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite pledge that the new national library will be in Central London?
Having devoted the greater part of my time, quite deliberately, to the question of the siting of the Library, I want to say something about delay and something about consultation. The subject of delay, I still believe, was most cogently and most fairly put by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he said that the Government's statement of 26th October had buried nearly 20 years of planning of the new Library for the British Museum. This must lead to further delay at a time when pressure on space for the display of antiquities is getting more and more severe and when, as we know, the expansion of university places both in Britain and in the United States inevitably brings more readers pressing on space in the Reading Room. It is therefore extraordinary that the Government

should have taken this step when university numbers are rising fast, and when all kinds of forces are encouraging postgraduate numbers far faster than ever before.
I was very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred to the speech made earlier this year by the right hon. Lady the Minister of State concerned with the arts. I was criticised, not unfairly—I made no complaint—for my own absence from an earlier debate, and I hoped that we might have seen the right hon. Lady for a short time tonight, because it was she who described
… the storage of the greater part of the material in the British Museum out of sight of the public as the most scandalous waste of precious national assets!
She described at a Press conference how she had been "slumming" at the Museum with the Director, and had been horrified to find
… all this material stored away in boxes and on shelves".
She said that the
… building had been shamefully neglected for decades …
and hoped that
means could be found of easing the congestion …
but that
… it was something that ought to have been done years ago".
I cannot help wondering whether she had been informed then that the Government's only contribution was to stop irretrievably the present proposals already embarked on.
Having dealt with siting and with delay, I turn to consultation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall, to whose speech I have been referring in his absence, whilst supporting the Opposition on the subject of siting felt that the issue of consultation was much less important. I do not agree, and I will explain to the House why. First, I must say to the Secretary of State that if his handling of this whole subject of the British Museum Library exemplifies what he means by consultation when he deals with local education authorities then, as a former Minister, I can promise him a pretty lively Ministerial term of office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hexham quoted Lord Radcliffe's letter to The Times of 31st October, which I think we would all agree is what one would call a basic document supporting the present Motion. What strikes me is the extraordinarily feeble nature of the Government's defences in explaining why they have behaved as they have done. First of all, last Friday week we had the hon. Lady the Minister of State concerned with higher education saying that really the Government had not behaved very badly, because when Lord Radcliffe visited the right hon. Gentleman who is now the President of the Board of Trade, it was not clear that there was to be another meeting. The Minister of State said:
It is quite clear from that transcript that either gentleman could honourably have gone away from that meeting concluding that there would be either a further meeting or that there would not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 579.]
With great respect to the hon. Lady, whom we all respect in this House, that seems to be one of the weakest pieces of special pleading I have heard for a long time. It recalls Lord Rosebery's comment on Shelburn, that his good faith was always exemplary and always in need of explanation. This was not an impressive argument.
The right hon. Gentleman tonight used an even more curious argument. He thought that the Radcliffe memorandum could not be improved upon. In other words, he thought that because the Government had the case before them there was no need for further consultation. That was exactly what Lord Radcliffe complained about in his letter, and rightly complained. The whole essence of Lord Radcliffe's charge was when he said:
I have been accustomed to dealing with Government Departments for many years now, and it would not have occurred to me, in the context of this case, in which the Trustees are responsible by statute for the conduct of the Museum that their views would be set aside and a long settled plan abandoned without even a discussion as to the reasons for the rejection and an honest attempt to work out a feasible alternative, if there is one.
This seems an extraordinary way to behave to a statutory body of Trustees, to men of the distinction of the noble Lords, Lord Radcliffe, Lord Annan and Lord Eccles, and a number of others.

Why could not the Government, if they were changing their mind—I think they were wrong to do so—have taken the Trustees into their confidence at some stage? Why could they not have said, "We may not now after all be able to approve the Martin plan. What is your alternative?" I believe that the reason the Government did not take that step was that any serious attempt at real consultation with the Trustees would have revealed the complete weakness of the Government's case and the weakness of their arguments for changing the site.
I have complained of the discourtesy of the Government to the Trustees. I think that the Secretary of State will be acting in a manner equally discourteous to this House if he does not now answer the point I have specifically put to him about the siting of the Library. He has twice given hints to the House, slightly more definite each time, that the Library will be sited in Central London. Before this debate comes to an end, will he tell the House exactly what is in his mind?
The right hon. Gentleman, having intended at one moment to ask the leave of the House to reply and having reserved time to do so, arrangements having been made through the usual channels that I should rise at half-past nine, he should say precisely what he meant by that remark in his speech. For the moment we can only take the situation as we find it. We have the situation of the Government having stopped proposals which I believe were sound. Here I echo what I think was a very fair summing up by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. He said that this is an ill-advised step. London will be deprived of a major piece of large-scale planning. An opportunity has been thrown away and this is a scholastically wrong decision.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State complained about our raising the matter this evening. He must agree, and the House must agree, that these are four very strong reasons for censuring the Government tonight. The British Museum is one of the major institutions of this country. We are debating a real blow to London, a real blow to scholarship and we are discussing a wasted opportunity. We would have been failing in our duty as an Opposition if we had not taken the opportunity tonight to return to this most important subject.


We have absolutely made out a case both regarding the wrong decision of the Government and the discourtesy with which they have treated the Trustees.
I think that the silence of the right hon. Gentleman, his unwillingness to take further part in this debate, still further justifies the Motion. In any case, I ask all my hon. and right hon. Friends to give the fullest support to the Motion, which, I believe, is entirely justified on its merits and on the Government's handling of this whole issue.

9.54 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not on his feet. Even at this late hour, I will give way so that he can accede to my right hon. Friend's request.
The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who has been pushing for the decision that the right hon. Gentleman has taken, admitted that she thinks that the Library should be in Central London. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who has held distinguished office in previous Labour Governments, with all the special knowledge that he has, has stated an opposing view to that of the right hon. Gentleman. The Liberal Party has made clear where it stands.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have put up an unanswerable argument. In view of the statement the Secretary of State made, he should take this extra step. I will give way now if he wishes to tell us where in Central London he has in mind.

Mr. Gordon Walker: There are a number of hon. Members who are here now who were not here during my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The right hon. Gentleman can speak again only by leave of the House.

Hon. Members: Leave.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was only interrupting the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). There are hon. Gentlemen now here who were not here during my speech, including the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of reading my speech. He will find that I have answered both of the questions which were put to me.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: That is an evasion and an obvious one and one which treats the House with contempt. It is on record that the right hon. Gentleman himself has said that he wants it to be in Central London. He has repeated that he thinks it right that it should be in Central London. It will not be on the site that we recommended and approved. He should fill in that blank. What part of Central London will it be sited in?

Sir E. Boyle: May I, by leave of the House—

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will it be in order for the Secretary of State to give the reasons why he has not replied to rather important questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which were put in the debate from this side of the House as well as from the other side, particularly as he told us that he would reserve five minutes at the end of the debate so that he could answer some points?

Sir E. Boyle: May I put this direct question to the Secretary of State? In connection with Central London and the siting of the Museum, he gave—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Equally, the right hon. Gentleman can speak again only with the leave of the House.

Hon. Members: Leave.

Sir E. Boyle: I ask for leave.
The right hon. Gentleman gave an intimation that he thought that the Library should be in Central London. He knows as well as I do that there is a great deal of difference between saying that there is a strong case for something, or that something should take place, and a Government notice that it will take place. I ask, in view of representations from both sides of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman explain that it will—that he means the word "will" and not just the word "should".

Mr. Gordon Walker: By leave of the House. I said I am "convinced" that the Library should be in Central London. That was the word I used tonight. I have set up this committee, which must look into this. It would be wrong for me to set up a committee, with a very important chairman, and go further than


this. I am convinced. I will not necessarily have to accept the advice of the committee if it went against me, but to predetermine a matter which it will be looking into seems to me wrong. I do not see that I can express it more strongly

and properly at the moment than by saying that I am convinced that it should be in Central London.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 279.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Astor, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Balniel, Lord
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus


Batsford, Brian
Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nott, John


Blaker, Peter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Boardman, Thomas (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Body, Richard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hawkins, Paul
Pardoe, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hay, John
Peel, John


Bryan, Paul
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hesedine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Gordon
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


Carlisle, Mark
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Prior, J. M. L.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cunningham, sir Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dance, James
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Silvester, Frederick


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sinclair, Sir George


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lane, David
Smith, John


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' n C dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian[...]'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Teeling, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
McMaster, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Foster, Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taney, John


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)




Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wright, Esmond


Walters, Dennis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Wylie, N. R.


Ward, Dame Irene
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Younger, Hn. George


Weatherill, Bernard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Webster, David
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Jasper More and




Mr. Reginald Eyre




NOES


Abse, Leo
Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Albu, Austen
Evans, Ioan L. (Blrm'h'm, Yardley)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Alldritt, Walter
Fernyhough, E.
McBride, Neil


Allen, Scholefield
Finch, Harold
MacColl, James


Archer, Peter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacDermot, Niall


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Macdonald, A. H.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Foley, Maurice
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Barnes, Michael
Ford, Ben
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Baxter, William
Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn, F. J.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Binns, John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth


Blackburn, F.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mason, Roy


Booth, Albert
Gregory, Arnold
Maxwell, Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boyden, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, Robert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hannan, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Buchan, Norman
Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cant, R. B.
Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Moyle, Roland


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert


Chapman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Coleman, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Norwood, Christopher


Concannon, J. D.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon


Conlan, Bernard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric


Corbert, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
O'Malley, Brian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howie, W.
Oram, Albert E.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Eclnyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Park, Trevor


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Delargy, Hugh
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(w.H am,S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, 8.)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter A Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, 8.)


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Donnelly, Desmond
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Driberg, Tom
Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, Rt. Hn, Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Reynolds, G. W.


Eadle, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)







Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Stonehouse, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Roebuck, Roy
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Swain, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Rose, Paul
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Sheldon, Robert
Tinn, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wallace, George
Woof, Robert


Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Slater, Joseph
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Yates, Victor


Small, William
Weitzman, David



Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitaker, Ben
Mr. Harry Gourlay and




Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY HOSPITAL, HANOVER (MEDICAL FACILITIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: It is a simple and rather pathetic little matter that I wish to raise this evening. I ask the Minister for only two comparatively small assurances.
The story concerns a girl from Maidstone, whose name is known to the Minister. She is a soldier's daughter and was educated in the rather secluded atmosphere of a convent. She is now aged 19. A year or more ago she went with her parents to Germany, where her father was serving. She became acquainted with a corporal who was at that time married, and who, I understand, has only very recently been divorced. In due course she became pregnant by the corporal. Her family returned to England and she had a free passage home with them. She then returned to Germany at her own expense and of her own free will, and she has been living with or near her corporal friend near Hanover since then.
I am now asking that she should be given free medical attention in the British military hospitial at Hanover. Because she returned to England with her parents, she would not normally be entitled to this as of right, but I ask that the medical care which she may well need when the baby is born should be free for four separate reasons. The first is that the father of the baby and her own father are serving soldiers. The father of the baby, who, I hope, will marry her in due course, is serving in Germany and would,

therefore, himself be entitled to free medical care in the hospital.
Second, the hospital and all its services are there anyway. It will not cost a penny piece, other than for incidental drugs in a small way if the baby is born there. It will be only a book-keeping transaction, and therefore the cost to the taxpayer would be virtually nil—certainly a great deal less than the cost of this debate, for which I apologise to the Minister.
Third, the girl is very poor. She is the oldest of a large family. Her corporal friend has an ex-wife and children, and therefore her financial circumstances are strained. I hope that as she is a British subject living with a British soldier who is in Germany on public service this will weigh in her favour.
My fourth reason for asking for the medical treatment to be free is that the pregnancy had already gone too far medically for her to travel home before the full implications of the matter were understood by her. She is entitled to special consideration both in view of her age and the circumstances of the soldier who is probably to be her husband.
I am told that the girl's father has refused to pay anything towards the hospital care, and takes, for him, the perfectly reasonable attitude that the Army should look after his daughter. By contrast, her mother, whose sole anxiety is the welfare of the baby that is to be born, has, I understand—perhaps rashly—made some firm offer to pay something towards the cost.
As I understand the book-keeping cost of hospitalisation for a pregnancy at the hospital, it might amount to about £120. I understand that the mother has five


other children, not all of them in good health, and her only income is that as the wife of a fairly senior soldier and the allowances that go with his salary. She is not a rich woman. She has made this offer out of the goodness of her heart, wanting to see her prospective grandchild born in the most favourable circumstances. So I hope that the grandmother, if we can call her that, will be absolved from any rash past statement she may have made offering to pay.
I, like the grandmother, have the welfare of the baby nearest to my heart. This is why I seek to raise the matter with the Minister tonight. I understand that under both British and German law the baby will be born a stateless person. This is the second point on which I hope the Minister can give us guidance. But I understand further—this is where I hope we shall have a clear statement—that, provided that the British Consul applies in good time, at the instance of the mother the child can become a British subject reasonably quickly and reasonably inexpensively.
As I have already made the point that the family is not a wealthy one, I hope that officialdom—which I believe has already been extremely kind to them—will continue to look upon this unhappy baby in the kindest possible light and ensure that the arrangements for birth are easy, that the mother is given every medical care and that the child achieves preferably British nationality but, failing that, German nationality rather than be born a stateless person, or that it acquires British nationality as soon as possible. Perhaps there is some point about nationality—whether it is actually born in the hospital or not. Perhaps the Minister can give us guidance on that, too.
In conclusion, I would say how extremely grateful I and my constituent, the grandmother, are to the Minister and his Department for their very great kindness expressed so far. They have taken a great deal of trouble in contacting the father in the Far East and so on. My constituent is very grateful. But there are just these two final points—the nationality and the actual cost of hospitalisation. I hope that we can have these two matters put right so that the grandmother's mind can be at rest and the child will soon have married parents serving happily in the Army.

10.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) for bringing this case to my attention and for the courteous and constructive way in which he has put it. I am also glad of the opportunity of explaining the position of the British military hospitals overseas with regard to private patients.
The hon. Gentleman has asked why it is necessary to raise charges at all when non-entitled patients, even British nationals, are admitted to British military hospitals. The Army is not required by its rôle, and is simply not able, to provide free medical attention and treatment except for military personnel and civilian officials serving overseas for whom the hospitals and their capacity are designed. Nor would it be reasonable and just to ask the British taxpayer to provide for more than this.
To concede preferential treatment for any particular case, much as we may sympathise with the individuals involved and their circumstances, could only be regarded as setting a most undesirable precedent which could lead other private British nationals in West Germany or elsewhere abroad, either as residents or as visitors, to expect to be treated in the same way. The end result would be the virtual extension of the free National Health Service to all areas overseas where there is a military presence. The resultant cost would have to be borne on the defence Votes and there are already more than enough demands on the defence budget.
I explained to the hon. Gentleman in my letter of 31st October that the soldier's daughter—she is 19 years of age —could not be given free medical treatment at a British medical hospital in B.A.O.R. because she lost her entitlement to free treatment in B.A.O.R. when she returned home to the United Kingdom with her father at the end of his tour of duty in Germany at the end of January this year.
When she returned to West Germany, which I understand to have been in late June or early July this year, she did so entirely of her own free will and under her own private arrangements and thereby voluntarily placed herself outside the


scope of free medical treatment, either from the Army or from the National Health Service. She was thus now in precisely the same position as regards medical treatment as any other United Kingdom civilian national privately visiting Germany.
I should like to give an outline of what happened before the hon. Gentleman first spoke to my office on 27th October. We now know the mother wrote to her daughter on 1st August, telling her to contact the Army medical officer at Soltau, B.A.O.R. Apparently on 5th October the daughter did get in touch with an Army medical officer, but at Munsterlager, B.A.O.R., and he, in turn, got in touch with the British Military Hospital at Hanover. The latter, quite properly, said that the daughter was not entitled to free medical treatment at the military hospital, but should be treated by the German medical authorities or practitioners with whom we do not compete for private patients, and they advised her to see the local German midwife where she was living.
At this time, no detailed background was known to the military hospital authorities, nor were there any reasons to treat the daughter differently from any other non-entitled person. The hospital authorities in Hanover therefore acted quite properly.
Between the 10th and 14th October, the mother privately telephoned the military hospital at Hanover. She spoke to a British Red Cross representative at the hospital and urged that her daughter should not be refused treatment as had happened on 5th October. As a result, the British Red Cross visited the daughter and later reported back to the mother in the United Kingdom. I am not sure of what was said on that occasion.
The Army medical authorities acted quite correctly but, naturally, looking at the case with hindsight, the question of admitting the young woman to the B.M.H. might have been handled differently had all the circumstances been known at the time. The situation as regard hospital charges, however, would have remained the same in any case.
That is to outline what happened before the hon. Gentleman spoke to my office

on 27th October, which was the first occasion on which I and my Department learnt of the difficulties facing this young woman. I was, of course, anxious to do all that could be done to help, but there were a number of difficulties in our way. The hon. Gentleman said when he spoke to my office that, among other things, the parents of this young woman were most anxious that the expected baby should be born in the British Military Hospital, Hanover, or another British military hospital, and they were prepared to pay any costs involved.
Thus, at the very outset, I think that the parents expected charges to be made for their daughter's confinement if it were to take place in a military hospital. But, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman, through no fault of his own, was not in a position to give us additional information which would have been most helpful; for example, we did not know the daughter's address in West Germany and it seems that the mother did not know. It was not until 9th November that we were able to get this information.
Obviously, we could take no action to get in touch with the daughter until we knew her address. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that the baby was due within two weeks, that is, about 10th November, but we now know that the expected date of confinement is about 26th November. I mention these points only to illustrate the efforts to try to help the daughter and that these were somewhat hampered from the start through lack of information to begin with.
Despite these difficulties, I agreed that if the daughter arrived at the B.M.H., Hanover, she would be admitted and treated there as a non-entitled patient: this meant that the normal charges would have to be raised by the hospital in due course. These charges are £9 5s. a day for treatment plus about £26 for ante-and post-natal treatment, a total sum of about £120 for a 10-day stay in hospital. The charges apply to all non-entitled patients in any British military hospital overseas, not merely to B.A.O.R., and although they may seem high they are not so when compared with the costs charged in civil hospitals on the Continent.
When we considered the question of the medical costs which would arise if


the young woman were admitted to the B.M.H. at Hanover, we took into account, of course, the fact that she was only 19 years of age, and therefore a minor. Consequently, our first move was to approach her father, at present temporarily on duty in the Far East, to find out whether he would meet these costs if raised. He did not, however, agree to be responsible for them.
The mother, on the other hand, said she would help her daughter financially, but she did not say to what extent. She has since told us that her daughter has not so far asked for financial assistance and in fact had returned money previously sent to her. These are of course domestic details which do not concern us directly, and I think we would feel bound not to interfere. This is in conflict with the information given to me by the hon. Gentleman that the parents were willing to pay the military hospital charges for their daughter.
If, as we now know, the baby is expected at the end of November, it is evident that the young woman must have been fully aware of her pregnancy at the time she returned to West Germany, of her own free will, in June or July this year. Why she took this step concerns herself and her family alone, but as the alleged father of the expected child was also in Germany, we do not have far to look for a reasonable motive. The fact remains, however, and I think this is important, that she apparently did not make any attempt to return to the United Kingdom at an earlier stage of her pregnancy, where she could have obtained excellent treatment, free of charge, either in a military hospital or under National Health Service arrangements.
In my view, it would not have been too late to do this even when the hon. Gentleman first contacted my office on 27th October. I could only conclude therefore that this young woman wished to have her baby born in a foreign country, regardless of the expense and difficulties which this might entail. This assumption is borne out, I think, by the fact that she did not take the normal action of a British national who is in distress or difficulty abroad by getting in touch with the nearest British Consulate in Hanover. The Consulate, when approached by the

military authorities, had no knowledge of the young woman's presence in Germany.
All this shows, I believe, that the young lady wishes to make her own arrangements in what must be a difficult situation for her. I do know however that there is concern about the nationality of the baby when it is born.
Assuming no marriage is contemplated between the mother and the putative father, under German law the child has no national status. Under Section 1 of the British Nationality (No. 2) Act, 1964, the mother can apply for registration of her child as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies provided that the mother herself is a United Kingdom citizen at the time of the birth, as I assume she is, and the child is and always has been stateless. The application, supported by evidence from the German authorities that the child is and always has been stateless, can be made through the nearest British Consulate on payment of a fee of 30s.
If the parents do marry before the No. 2 Act procedure is completed, then the marriage may legitimate the child in retrospect under English law. An application should be made in these circumstances to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs through the nearest consulate for the child's nationality to be confirmed under Section 23 of the British Nationality Act, 1948. The procedure is reasonably straightforward on either count to ensure that the child is British.
When the military authorities in Germany finally found out where the young lady was living, the local military padre, and a representative of the military welfare services went to see her and they explained the position to her again, saying that she could be admitted to the B.M.H. at Hanover as a non-entitled patient. She was, however, adamant that she did not wish to enter the hospital and preferred to have the baby where she was living. However, I have arranged that, should any medical emergency arise, she should be conveyed direct to the B.M.H., if she then so wishes.
Despite the understandable interest and concern of the mother, the hon. Gentleman will realise that we have no power to insist on the young woman entering the B.M.H. against her wishes and that there is really very little more we can


do. But, as I have already made clear, if she does go to the hospital she will be admitted. She will be told the probable cost of her treatment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of her not receiving any treatment she may need if she says she is unable to pay the costs.
We have been considerably hampered by lack of information, but as soon as all the facts were available to us we did what we could and, as I have already said, I am sure that my Department and the B.H.M. authorities have dealt quite properly with the case.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied that we have done all we can, and that the young lady will be able to settle what are quite difficult emotional and matrimonial problems in the very near future.

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak, but

he can ask a question before the Minister sits down.

Mr. Wells: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether, in the event of the putative father being posted elsewhere before the marriage takes place—and if the hon. Gentleman does not have the answer now perhaps he will write to me and let me know so that I can forward the information to the grandmother —the nationality situation will be made more difficult in any way because of the absence of the couple from Germany, and therefore the lack of evidence through the British Consul in Germany? Will it be possible to act direct through the Home Office.

Mr. Boyden: I do not know the answer to the second point. On the first one, I will ensure that the corporal is not posted until these matters are satisfactorily settled.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.